Creation Research Society Quarterly Application Form3 ... science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and ... A classical approach to electricity and magnetism with a chapter on

Creation ResearchSociety Quarterly

Haec credimus:For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, andall that in them is, and rested on the seventh. — Exodus 20:11

VOLUME 31 JUNE 1994 NUMBER 1

CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETYCopyright 1994 © by Creation Research Society ISSN 0092-9166

VOLUME 31 JUNE 1994 NUMBER 1

ARTICLES DEPARTMENTS

Not So Blind a Watchmaker . . . Richard D. Lumsden 13

The Evolution of Geological Origins Theories: Part 25I—The Haymond Interbeds, Marathon Basin, Texas. . . George F. Howe and Emmett L. Williams

Anatomical Evidence for Creation: Design in The 35Human Body . . . David A. Kaufmann

The Effect of Charles Darwin on The English 42Victorian Writer, Thomas Henry Huxley . . . Jay E. Long

Pine Creek Gorge, The Grand Canyon of 44Pennsylvania: An Introductory Creationist Study . . .Emmett L. Williams, Eugene F. Chaffin, Robert E.Goette, and John R. Meyer

PANORAMA NOTES

Reprinted CRSQ Volume 16 . . . Emmett L. Williams 22

Carlsbad “Signs Off” . . . Glen Wolfrom 34

Cover PhotographThis cover photograph by

Robert L. Goette shows how PineCreek (Pennsylvania) comesfrom the left and makes a sud-den 90° change in direction. Sev-eral ideas have been advancedby Williams et al. to explain this

sharp right turn and subsequent plunge of a river throughmountains.

Membership/Subscription Application Form 3Order Blank for Past Publications 4Editor’s Comments 6Instructions to Authors 6

Dedication to Wayne Frair 7

Index to Volume 30 of CRSQ 31

Letters: What Is “Creation Science”?, by Bolton 8Davidheiser n Aguja and Javalina Formations—Lithostratigraphic Disagreements, by Emmett L.Williams n Solubility of Silicate Minerals and thePetrifaction of Wood, by Emmett L. Williams nFailure of Natural Selection, by Jeffrey West nExpansion of Space, by Jeffrey M. Groah n “EveTheory” Comments, by Jeremy Aldaney n Reply toAuldaney, by Marvin Lubenow n Asteroid Hypothesisfor Dinosaur Extinction, by Jeremy Auldaney n Replyto Comments on The Asteroid Hypothesis forDinosaur Extinction, by Michael Oard

Book Reviews: Remember Thy Creator, reviewed byDon B. DeYoung, p. 34 n God, The Big Bang andStephen Hawking, reviewed by Don B. DeYoung, p.43 n Of Pandas and People: The Central Question ofBiological Origins— Second Edition, reviewed byWayne Frair, p. 59 n Originations of Life fromVolcanoes and Petroleum: A Scientific TheoryOpposed to Evolution, reviewed by Wayne Frair, p.61 n Science and Biblical Faith: A ScienceDocumentary, reviewed by Emmett L. Williams, p. 62

Instructions to authors can be found in June Quarterly.

Editorial Committee

Wayne Frair

Eugene F. ChaffinEditor

Robert Gentet

Don B. DeYoung George F. HoweBook Review Editor Associate Editor

Duane Gish Russell Humphreys Emmett L. Williams Glen W. Wolfrom

Board of Directors

Emmett L. Williams Don B. DeYoung David A. Kaufmann Robert E. Gentet Glen W. WolfromPresident Vice-President Secretary Treasurer Membership Secretary

Ted Aufdemberge David R. Boylan Eugene F. Chaffin Duane T. Gish Wayne Frair George F. Howe

D. Russell Humphreys John W. Klotz Lane P. Lester Richard Lumsden David J. Rodabaugh Paul A. Zimmerman

Experiment Stations

John R. MeyerDirector of Research

Van Andel (Grand Canyon) Research Station Grasslands Study Site

Creation Research Society Quarterly is indexed in the Christian Periodical Index.

Creation Research Society Quarterly is published by the Creation Research Society, P.O. Box 969, Ashland, OH 44805-0969.

Editor’s Address: Eugene F. Chaffin, 715 Tazewell Ave., Bluefield, VA 24605.

Book Review Editor: Don B. DeYoung, 200 Seminary Dr., Winona Lake, IN 46590.

Printed in United States of America.

MEMBERSHIP/SUBSCRIPTION APPLICATION FORM 3CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETYSee the current CRSQ for membership information

4 ORDER BLANK FOR PAST PUBLICATIONSSee the current CRSQ for ordering information

CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY
History The Creation Research Society was organized in1963, with Dr. Walter E. Lammerts as first president andeditor of a quarterly publication. Initially started as aninformal committee of 10 scientists, it has grown rapidly,evidently filling a real need for an association devoted toresearch and publication in the field of scientific creation,with a current membership of over 600 voting members(with graduate degrees in science) and over 1100 non-votingmembers. The Creation Research Society Quarterly hasbeen gradually enlarged and improved and now is recog-nized as the outstanding publication in the field.
Activities The society is solely a research and publicationsociety. It does not hold meetings or engage in other promo-tional activities, and has no affiliation with any other scientificor religious organizations. Its members conduct research onproblems related to its purposes, and a research fund ismaintained to assist in such projects. Contributions to theresearch fund for these purposes are tax deductible. TheSociety operates two Experiment Stations, the Grand CanyonExperiment Station in Chino Valley, Arizona and the Grass-lands Study Site in Weatherford, Oklahoma.

Membership Voting membership is limited to scientistshaving at least an earned graduate degree in a natural orapplied science. Dues are $20.00 ($24.00 foreign) per yearand may be sent to Glen W. Wolfrom, Membership Secretary,P.O. Box 969, Ashland, OH 44805-0969. Sustaining member-ship for those who do not meet the criteria for votingmembership, and yet who subscribe to the statement ofbelief, is available at $20.00 ($24.00 foreign) per year andincludes a subscription to the Quarterlies. All others interestedin receiving copies of all these publications may do so at therate of the subscription price for all issues or one year:$23.00 ($27.00 foreign).

Statement of Belief Members of the Creation ResearchSociety, which include research scientists representing variousfields of successful scientific accomplishment, are committedto full belief in the Biblical record of creation and earlyhistory, and thus to a concept of dynamic special creation (asopposed to evolution), both of the universe and the earthwith its complexity of living forms. We propose to re-evaluate science from this viewpoint. and since 1964 havepublished a quarterly of research articles in this field. In 1970the Society published a textbook, Biology: A Search forOrder in Complexity, through Zondervan Publishing House,Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506. All members of the Societysubscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it isinspired throughout, all its assertions are historically andscientifically true in all the original autographs. To thestudent of nature this means that the account of origins inGenesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including humans, weremade by direct creative acts of God during the CreationWeek described in Genesis. Whatever biological changeshave occurred since Creation Week have accomplished onlychanges within the original created kinds.

3. The Great Flood described in Genesis, commonly re-ferred to as the Noachian Flood, was a historical eventworldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women ofscience who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as oneman and woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basisfor our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all people.Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting JesusChrist as our Savior.

VOLUME 31, JUNE 1994 5

Two Excellent Books

ORIGINS: WHAT IS AT STAKE?by Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr.

The author deals with Scriptural as well asscientific issues in the origins debate.

$8.95

CREATIONIST RESEARCH (1964-1988)by Duane T. Gish

Biological, chemical, geological and physical researchperformed by scientific creationists.

$4.95

Both may be purchased from Creation Research Society Books for$12.00 plus 10% postage

QuoteWhen evolution is said to be a fact, not a theory, what is actually meant? That now-living things have descended

from ancestors, with modification, over time? Or that the modifications came by chance, not by design? Or, inaddition, that all living things ultimately had the same ancestor? Or, still further, that the “first living thing” had asits ancestor a nonliving thing? Context indicates that when evolution is asserted to be a fact, not a theory, the viewactually being pushed includes that of common origin, ultimate inorganic ancestry, and modification throughnonpurposive mechanisms: a set of beliefs that goes far beyond the mountain of fact that is actually there, whichconsists largely of fossils that demonstrate some sort of relationship and some sort of change over time (p. 65).

Bauer, Henry H. 1992. Scientific Literary and the Myth of the Scientific Method. University of Illinois Press.Chicago.

NEW BOOKS AVAILABLE

FOUNDATIONS OF ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM by Thomas G. Barnes

A classical approach to electricity and magnetism with a chapter onthe author’s work on the decay of the earth’s magnetic field

413 pages $18.00 plus postage

HELPING CHILDREN UNDERSTAND GENESIS AND THE DINOSAURby Erich A. von Fange

Children learn of a creationist approach to dinosaurs208 pages $12.95 plus postage

Order from CRS Books

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Third International Conference on Creationism will be held in Pittsburgh, PA on July18-23, 1994. For information, contact: Creation Science Fellowship Inc., P.O. Box 99303, Pittsburgh, PA 15233-4303or call 412+341-4968.

6 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

Editors’ Comments
The CRSQ editors serve by appointment of the Board
for a period of five years. This has been the pattern forall editors except the late Harold Armstrong who will-ingly held the position for ten years. Don DeYoung andEmmett Williams have passed their tasks along to usand have set high journalistic standards for us to main-tain. They have also left to you, the readers, a diversi-fied backlog of articles filling this issue and spillingover to some extent into the September Quarterly.

Writers are hereafter encouraged to send all bookreviews directly to Don DeYoung who has assumed thenewly created post of Book Review Editor—see ad-dress on the masthead. All other manuscripts should bemailed to Eugene Chaffin, the new editor. The editorwill continue to subject all submitted material to a peerreview process which improves the quality of articlesand is a practice widely followed in professional socie-ties. Authors are encouraged to read and follow instruc-tions on page 6 of this issue. George Howe, the newassociate editor, will oversee the process of the pagelayout and design of Quarterly issues.

We congratulate Wayne Frair on his long and produc-tive period of service for the C.R.S. We are proud todedicate this June issue to a man who has served asBoard member, Secretary, Vice President, and Presi-dent. We also salute the new individual who was electedas President of CRS at its recent meeting at the beauti-

ful and functional CRS Van Andel Research Center,Chino Valley, AS—Emmett L. Williams. Dr. Williamswas the key Board member involved with selectingthis choice location just 12 years ago. Readers willlearn more in future issues of John Meyer’s effectivelabors to establish this center for creationist research.

Our “Editors’ Comments” section would becomeunwieldy if we began commenting on each of thefeatures in this issue. There is material here for peopleof many interests—geologists, biologists, anthropolo-gists, astronomers, physicists, historians, and others. Ifa picture is worth a thousand words, then the Junepublication is a whole “library.” River action, musclefunction, turbidite strata, flagella rotors, and more canbe visualized from the more than 60 illustrations here.

Studies in creation science should be objective. But aproper perspective keeps in sight the Creator’s role increation and redemption, as Bolton Davidheiser wiselypoints out in his letter. In the days of Isaac Newton, theword “science” involved a study of God’s world, andin no way implied a study in which all mention ofGod was to be avoided. CRSQ is one of the fewscientific publications in which God’s proficiency increating and sustaining the universe is extolled. Wewant to keep the Quarterly that way.

Eugene ChaffinGeorge Howe

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
1. Manuscripts shall be typed and double spaced.2. An original plus two copies shall be submitted to
the editor of the Quarterly.

3. All submitted articles will be reviewed by at leasttwo technical referees. The editor may or may notfollow the advice of these reviewers. Also, the pro-spective author may defend his position againstreferee opinion.

4. The editor reserves the right to improve the style ofthe submitted articles. If the revisions of the editorand referees are extensive, the changes will be sentto the author. If the changes are not suitable to theprospective author, he may withdraw his requestfor publication.

5. Due to the expense involved, manuscripts and illus-trations will not be returned to authors.

6. All references (bibliography) must be presented inthe style shown in the Quarterly. If a prospectiveauthor is not familiar with the CRSQ format, theeditor will furnish an example reference page.

7. All figures and drawings must be prepared profes-sionally. No sloppy hand drawings or freehandlettering will be accepted. The editor reserves theright to approve submitted figures. Unacceptableillustrations will result in rejection of the manu-script for publication. Do not send slides.

8. Any manuscript containing more than 25 pages isdiscouraged. If a topic cannot be covered to theauthor’s satisfaction in this length of pages, theauthor must divide his material into separate papersthat can be serialized in the Quarterly.

9. The Quarterly is a journal of original writings.Only under unusual circumstances will we reprintpreviously published manuscripts. Never submitan article to two or three journals, including ours,hoping all of them will publish your work. Whensubmitting an article, please state if the materialhas been published previously or has been sub-mitted to other journals.

10. Book reviews should be limited to 560 words orfewer.

VOLUME 31, JUNE 1994

DEDICATION TO WAYNE FRAIR

Occasionally the Quarterly is dedicated to someonewho has made important contributions to the CreationResearch Society. This issue honors Dr. Wayne Frair,CRS president for the past eight years. Many descrip-tions of Wayne come to mind: A leader with quiethumility and humor; a writer, traveler, and turtle expert.

Wayne spent two years in the Navy during WWII,after high school. Then he graduated from HoughtonCollege (AB), Wheaton (BS), The University of Massa-chusetts (MA), and Rutgers (Ph. D). His doctorate con-cerned turtle biochemical taxonomy. Continuing re-search has made Wayne a recognized expert in turtleblood chemistry. He has traveled widely, including a1969 trip to Surinam, South America, sponsored by theNational Geographic Society (1978). There he studiedthe world’s largest living turtles, the giant leatherbacks.This year Wayne plans to donate his valuable collectionof thousands of frozen turtle blood samples to theLouisiana State University Museum of Zoology.

Wayne Frair has more than 100 publications; 40 areoriginal research articles. A co-authored book, A Casefor Creation (1983), has gone through three editionsand 60,000 copies. His CRSQ writings have been help-ful to many of us: Life in a test tube, The FreiburgSkull, Original kinds and turtle phylogeny, etc. Theturtle studies document the lack of an ancestor orevolutionary change for turtles. A significant article inScience (1972) reported the first so-called “warmblooded” reptile following temperature studies ofleatherback turtles. Wayne belongs to dozens of sciencesocieties. Among them he holds life memberships inSigma Xi and The American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science. These credentials resulted inthe invitation to be a witness at the 1981 creation/evolution trial in Little Rock, Arkansas. Wayne Frair’scareer clearly shows that creationists make good scien-tists, with a positive impact in research.

Wayne has enjoyed 39 years of biology teaching atThe King’s College, NY. His colleagues have twice

voted him Faculty Member of the Year. And Waynecan still surprise us: he married Elizabeth (Betty) in1987 after 61 years as a bachelor. Naturally, turtle soupwas served at the wedding reception! Visitors toWayne’s college lab will see a pet black rat snake thathatched in the lab eleven years ago. For a while thecollection also held the largest known Eastern BoxTurtle, just over three pounds (Cook, 1972). There wasalso the oldest known razor-backed musk turtle, at 26years. Wayne presently keeps a 35 pound alligatorsnapping turtle in a large laboratory bathtub, a researchanimal and pet for 25 years!

Wayne and Betty live in New York high on a hillsideoverlooking the Hudson River. They have both recentlyretired from The King’s College, he with emeritusstatus. Wayne and Betty will continue with turtle re-search, travel, creation speaking/writing, and managingconference book tables. They have active ministries:Wayne teaches adult Sunday School; Betty speaks atwomen’s seminars and also leads popular afternoonforums during summers at Camp of the Woods inSpeculator, NY.

Thanks, Wayne, for your faithful leadership in theCRS. Your life encourages all of us toward excellencein exploring the creation.

ReferencesCook, Stephen, Donald Abb, and Wayne Frair. 1972. A New Record

Size Box Turtle. International Turtle and Tortoise Society Journal6(3):9-17.

Frair, Wayne, R. G. Ackman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body Tem-perature of Dermochelys coriacea: Warm Turtle from Cold Water.Science 177:791-93.

Frair, Wayne, and Bert Prol. 1978. Taxonomic Study of the GiantLeatherback Turtle (dermochelys coriacea). Pages 187-194 inP. H. Oehser and J. S. Lea, Eds. National Geographic SocietyResearch Reports 1969. Washington, D.C.

Frair, Wayne, and Percival Davis. 1963. A Case for creation. MoodyPress. Chicago.

Don B. DeYoung


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
What is “Creation Science”?
The term “scientific creationism” was promoted bya book by the same name published in 1974 by mem-bers of the Institute for Creation Research. Soon “crea-tion science” became popular among creationists andit still is. That evolutionists would have a heyday withthese terms could have been predicted from the start,but even with the advantage of hindsight, creationistscontinue to use the term “creation science,” while evolu-tionists pile ridicule and abuse upon them for callingcreation scientific.

Creation was by supernatural acts of God. Creation-ists believe this. How, then, can creationists call creationscientific? They don’t.

Knowledgeable evolutionists must be aware of this butapparently the temptation to take advantage of a fauxpas on the part of the adversary is too strong to resist.

The public school edition of the aforementionedbook explains on page iv, “The purpose of scientificcreationism is to treat all the more important aspects ofthe subject of origins and to do this solely on a scientificbasis [that’s the rationale for the terms “scientific crea-tionism” and “creation science”], with no reference tothe Bible or to religious doctrine. The treatment ispositive rather than negative [but there are negativeaspects in the issue, as when evolution is seen to be aninadequate explanation of the facts], showing that thecreation model of origins and history may be used tocorrelate the facts of science at least as effectively asthe evolution model.”

Thus “scientific creationism” and “creation science”do not imply that creation was scientific but insteadthat creation versus evolution may be discussed on thebasis of the “scientific” evidences without reference toScripture. The Bible itself supports this, saying in thefirst chapter of the epistle to the Romans that theevidences of creation are so evident in nature that theheathen are without excuse for their idolatry.

The evolutionists also made a faux pas. In their caseit is the term “micro-evolution,” for something purport-ing to be evolution but is not. A difference betweenthe case of the creationists and that of the evolutionistsis that the rather unfortunate term of the creationistshas a corrective explanation while, in contrast, the oneof the evolutionists is intended to mean what it implies.Thus a charge can be made, whether it is able to besubstantiated or not, that the term “micro-evolution”originated as a deliberate deception. At best, the inter-pretation is that “micro-evolution” leads to what reallywould be evolution and is called “macro-evolution.”However, there is no evidence for this.

There are many examples of “micro-evolution,” butthe classic example is the case of the light and darkmoths in England. Before the Industrial Revolutionthese moths were predominantly light in color andblended with the lichen-covered trunks of trees as themoths rested in the daytime, making them difficult forpredatory birds to see. There were some mutant darkmoths of the same species. They contrasted with thebackground and were easily seen and captured bybirds. Thus the dark moths remained few in number.Then, with the industrial Revolution, contaminantsdarkened the trees in the industrialized areas, resulting

in the light moths being conspicuous and the darkmoths protected. As could have been predicted, in ashort time the dark moths predominated in numbers.

So what? In popular books and articles for the publicand in textbooks for students this was hailed as anoutstanding example of evolution! Actually there wasno evolution here. The moths were still moths. Theywere not becoming anything else. This is a good exam-ple of Darwinian natural selection but all it does isdemonstrate that natural selection is not the same asevolution and it does not necessarily lead to evolution.However, it made an impression on the public, andconservative Christians asked speakers for creation,“We must believe some evolution, must we not?” Forevolutionists the trick worked.

Charles Darwin is, and no doubt always will be, thehero of evolutionists. He gained fame by supplying amechanism for evolution, his natural selection theory.However, this still is questioned by evolutionists as towhether it is adequate. Several things have been added,particularly mutations, to bring about variations fornatural selection to select. But mutations do not supplythe kinds of changes required for evolution, “macro-evolution.”

Evolutionists introduced the concept “micro-evolu-tion” as evolution and got away with it. Creationistsintroduced the term “creation science” and have beenridiculed for it ever since.

Although creation versus evolution can be discussedfrom the creationist point of view without reference toreligion, it must be admitted that the religious aspect iswhat motivates creationists, and doctrine is basic. Mostevolutionists are not particularly interested in religionand probably very few of them are even aware of thedoctrinal connotation. It seems almost everyone thinksof the creation-evolution conflict as having to do onlywith historical aspects of the Genesis account of crea-tion. But the doctrinal implication is basic to Christianfaith. If evolution is true, we are improved animals(“man and other animals” is a common expression inevolutionary writing) instead of fallen representativesof a perfect creation. God demands perfection, ofwhich we now are not capable. The way out of thedilemma is provided by the offer to us of accepting asinless substitute for the punishment deserved by us.The Lord Jesus Christ, as Deity, came and offeredHimself as the final and all-sufficient sacrifice in atone-ment at Calvary, so that those who believe and receivethis sacrifice for themselves, not relying on good deedsor ceremonies, are saved unto everlasting life withHim. This is the Biblical doctrine of salvation. If evolu-tion is true, we are improved animals instead of fallensinners. Then there is no occasion for the Redeemer.

This is the basic issue which makes the conflict be-tween creation and evolution so crucial.

Bolton Davidheiser13530 Fonseca Ave., La Mirada, CA 90838

Aguja and Javelina Formations —Lithostratigraphic Disagreements

Williams and Howe (1993) gave a brief descriptionof the Aguja and Javelina formations in which theyfound petrified wood. Froede (1994) kindly expanded


the discussion emphasizing the problems with strati-graphic correlations. It was noted in Williams and Howe(1993, p. 47) that there is disagreement between fieldworkers on the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in BigBend National Park involving the two formations(Schiebout et al., 1987; Lehman, 1988; Schiebout et al.,1988). This is a typical geological debate which illus-trates the difficulty of placing stratigraphic boundariesbetween formations in a gradational sequence.

One possible interpretation using the Flood modelwould involve rapid sedimentation of the Upper Agujaand Lower Javelina formations under similar conditionssuch that it is difficult to distinguish between them.Possibly the actual time span during deposition of thetwo formations was quite brief?

ReferencesCRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly.Froede, C. R., Jr 1994. Comments on the article: Fossil wood of Big

Bend National Park, Brewster County, Texas: Part I—geologicsetting. CRSQ 30:187-189

Lehman, T. M. 1988. Stratigraphy of the Cretaceous-Tertiary andPaleocene-Eocene transition rocks of Big Bend National Park,Texas: A discussion. Journal of Geology 96:627-631.

Schiebout, J. A., C. A. Rigsby, S. D. Rapp, J. A. Hartnell and B. A.Standhardt. 1987. Stratigraphy of the Cretaceous-Tertiary andPaleocene-Eocene transition rocks of Big Bend National Park,Texas. Journal of Geology 95:359-375.

1988.Stratigraphy of the Cretaceous-Tertiary and Paleocene-Eocenetransition rocks of Big Bend National Park, Texas: A reply. Journalof Geology 96:631-634.

Williams, E. L. and G. F. Howe. 1993. Fossil wood of Big BendNational Park, Brewster County, Texas: Part I—geologic setting.CRSQ 30:47-54.

Emmett L. Williams5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092-2124

Solubility of Silicate Minerals andthe Petrifaction of Wood

A young earth model for the petrifaction of woodwas suggested by Williams (1993, pp. 106-111). Amongthe various factors that were discussed, it was notedthat certain woods have an affinity for silica and thatslight decomposition of wood may encourage silicifi-cation in an aqueous-silica environment. Other obser-vations on the silicification of wood were offered byFroede (1994, p. 187).

Bennett et al. (1991, pp. 328-331) found that anoxic,microbially-active, organically-rich environments in apeat bog enhanced the apparent solubility and dissolu-tion rate of quartz and silicate minerals (p. 331). Relatethese findings to the possible petrifaction of woodduring the Flood. Assume that submerged, waterloggedwood could be buried under Flood-deposited, silica-rich sediments. Likewise waterlogged wood could becovered by bentonite in an early post-Flood period(Williams and Howe, 1993). The presence of water,anoxic conditions and slight decay of the wood struc-ture by microbial activity possibly could increase theamount of dissolved silica available for silicification. Ifan early post-Flood environment existed as proposedby Oard (1990), humid conditions would insure anample supply of water necessary for the continuingsilicification of wood in silica-rich sediments.

Possibly some laboratory studies duplicating thesesuggested conditions would enable the investigator todetermine the nature of the processes needed for therapid petrifaction of wood.

ReferencesCRSQ—Creation Research Society QuarterlyBennett, P. C., D. I. Siegel, B. M. Hill and P. H. Glaser. 1991. Fate of

silicate minerals in a peat bog. Geology 19:328-331.Froede, C. F., Jr. 1994. Comments on the article: Fossil wood of Big

Bend National Park, Brewster County, Texas: Part I—geologicsetting. CRSQ 30:187-189.

Oard, M. J. 1990. An ice age caused by the Genesis Flood. Institutefor Creation Research. El Cajon, CA.

Williams, E. L. 1993. Fossil wood from Big Bend National Park,Brewster County, Texas: Part II—mechanism of silicification ofwood and other pertinent factors. CRSQ 30:106-111.

and G. F. Howe. 1993. Fossil wood from Big BendNational Park, Brewster County, Texas: Part I—geologic setting.CRSQ 30:47-54.

Emmett L. Williams5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA 30092-2124

Failure of Natural SelectionThe article by Bergman (1993) concerning the greater

rate of extinction of higher life forms was an excellentrefutation of natural selection and evolutionary theory.As the author mentioned, the natural selection thatdoes occur simply changes the frequency of existingpossible phenotypes and does not create new life forms.For example, in deer and turkey populations in theeastern United States, specimens from the northernlatitudes are larger in size than those to the south,particularly Florida. Wildlife biologists believe thatthe lower ratio of body weight to surface area of thesouthern animals permits their bodies to dissipate moreheat in the warmer summers whereas those in thenorth can retain more heat in the colder winters.

Bergman’s observations on the scarcity of higherplant species is perfectly illustrated by the insectivorousVenus Fly Trap, Dionaea muscipula. This species hasfolding leaves with perpendicular bristles on the leafmargins and lures insects with an attractive secretion.The leaf snaps shut to capture the insect, where it isslowly digested. Some believe this adaptation evolvedto allow growth in nitrogen-poor soils. Surely this mustbe considered one of the most highly developed plantson the planet, yet historically this species was foundonly within a 100-mile radius of Wilmington, N.C. Onewould think that with this advantage the plant wouldbe highly successful, yet the exact opposite was thecase even before ecological disturbance by the coloni-zation of America.

If one considers the operation of a man-made ma-chine, the greater the complexity, the more parts re-quired which could break and render the machineuseless. This is analogous to a more highly developedspecies which will become extinct when a specificrequirement is absent. These are just a few examplesof the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the universalincrease in entropy, that impenetrable barrier whichevolution can never traverse.

ReferenceBergman, J. 1993. The problem of extinction and natural selection.

Creation Research Society Quarterly 30:93-106.Jeffrey West3226 Danfield Dr., Columbia, SC 29204

Editor’s Note: Other creationist comments on the Venus fly-trap canbe found in Howe, G. F. 1978. The Venus flytrap—a cagey plant.CRSQ 15:39-40.


Expansion of SpaceDr. Bolton Davidheiser (1993, p. 62) raised an inter-

esting question in his letter to the editor He noted thatcosmologists claim the universe expanded from 10-28

cm in diameter to about one meter in 10-30 seconds;about 1.67 x 1021 times the speed of light! If cosmolo-gists believed that the Minkowski metric modeled theearly universe, then Dr. Davidheiser might have founda contradiction. However, this is not the case. It is easyto justify the claims of the cosmologists by consideringa rubber sheet model of the universe. Suppressing onespace dimension so that we may picture what is goingon, the universe may be thought of as a sphericalrubber balloon which is currently expanding (Rindler,1969, pp. 237-238). A ray of light may be thought of asan ideal bug which moves at uniform speed and onlyas straight as possible on the surface of the balloon.Apparently, the size of the balloon (i.e. the universe) isindependent of the speed of the bug (i.e., light). With-out going into equations, I believe that this discussionexplains the apparent paradox Dr. Bolton Davidheiserwas so astute as to notice.

ReferencesDavidheiser. Bolton. 1993. The speed of light. CRSQ 30:62.Rindler, Wolfgang. 1969. Essential relativity, special, general, and

cosmology. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York.Jeffrey M. Groah86 Lyle Way, Davis, CA 95616

Editor’s Note: The question of this letter has also been addressed inTalcott, Richard. 1994. Everything you wanted to know about thebig bang. Astronomy 22(1):30-35.

“Eve Theory” CommentsPaleoanthropologist Martin L. Lubenow criticized

creationists in a letter to the editor in the December1993 issue of CRSQ for using the “African Eve,” “Outof Africa,” or mitochondrial “Eve” theory as supportfor the Genesis account of creation (Lubenow, 1993, p.124.) This theory was proposed by evolutionary biolo-gists at the University of California, Berkeley (Hedgeset al., 1992). It suggests that all modern humans camefrom one woman in ancient Africa.

Lubenow correctly states that there is no connectionbetween the evolutionist’s “African Eve”; and the crea-tionist’s Biblical Eve. This imaginary “Eve” of the evo-lutionists does not fit the facts, and could not exist.Because: (1) The tribe coming from this woman had tohave been isolated from other humans: which is notlikely. (2) These other humans (Outside the “AfricanEve’s” line) had to become extinct; which is also notlikely. (3) And this tribe would likely become genetic-ally weak from inbreeding and would not survive.

In spite of all this, the creationists who used thistheory are not entirely wrong. The problem here is torightly divide the facts from speculative explanations.

These objections are only valid against the evolution-ary interpretation, from an evolutionary viewpoint.These objections falsify the speculative story; not thepossible truth found in the results of the research.

Lubenow argues that this origin does not include“the origin of all humans; but only the origin of modernhumans” (Lubenow, p. 124).

From the creation viewpoint there is no such thing asprimitive humans and modern humans: there are onlyapes and men. In fact, Lubenow believes some of the

Homo erectus fossils are humans; which I believe arechimpanzees.

Lubenow goes on and says that evolutionists ChrisStringer (British Museum of Natural History) andStephen Jay Gould have urged to make Neandertals aseparate species. This is typical of evolutionary think-ing. If you read evolutionist slanted articles you willfind that most of them try to emphasize the “primitive”nature of Neandertals. Evolutionists suffered a blow totheir theory when it was found that some of the “primi-tive” features of Neandertals was caused by rickets,and a biased interpretation. And they continue to tryand hang onto this wrong interpretation.

Returning to the Eve controversy. Lubenow alsopoints out that the research done by the Berkeleychemists is now being questioned. One of the creatorsof the theory, Mark Stonekling (now at PennsylvaniaUniversity) admits that the results were based on animproper interpretation of the results from a complexcomputer program (Lubenow, p. 124).

As creationists we should take this news with a“grain of salt,” realizing that (no doubt) when the crea-tionists started using these results, pressure was puton the evolutionist researchers to retract their originalconclusions.

It is strange, but whenever evolutionists discoversomething, and it is later found to support creation: theresults are called into question!

In conclusion. As far as the results of the experimentsmade by the Berkeley chemists, the evidence againsttheir results was based on the inability for their inter-pretation of the evidence to fit known facts. Whethertheir experiments were right or wrong, as creationistswe know that their conclusions are correct; but it wasnot an “African Eve,” but the GENESIS EVE!

ReferencesCRSQ-Creation Research Society Quarterly.Hedges S. Blair, Sudhir Kumar, Koichiro Tamura, and Mark Stone-

kling. 1992. Human origins and analysis of mitochondrial DNAsequences. Science 255:737-739.

Lubenow, Marvin L. 1993. Letter to the editor: Neandertal Man.CRSQ 30:124-125.

Sennott, Thomas Mary. 1993. Neandertal man: pre-adamite, co-adamite, or adamite. CRSQ 29:199-203.

Jeremy Auldaney, editorAnomanology Newsletter10926 Hole, Riverside, CA 92505

Reply to AuldaneyAuldaney grants the validity of my basic thesis—that

creationists should not use the “Out of Africa” theoryas proof or support for Genesis 1 and 2 because (1) thattheory deals with the origin of modern humans, not theorigin of all humans, and (2) that theory has since beenshown to be flawed.

Auldaney, however, seems to argue that creationistscan use the results of that research without regard tothe “speculative explanations.” He misses the fact thatGenesis and the “Out of Africa” theory are addressingtwo completely different issues. It is unethical—to saynothing of being bad methodology—to try to use scien-tific research dealing with origin of “modern” humansto support the Genesis account of the origin of allhumans. The fact that both Auldaney and I agree thatthere are no primitive humans (in the evolutionarysense of that term) does not detract from the fact that


“Out of Africa” and Genesis are talking about twodifferent things. It is not just a matter of interpretingthe research two different ways.

Further, the “Out of Africa” theory has been shownto be flawed because of the improper use of a computerprogram. Auldaney suggests that evolutionists are dis-carding the theory because creationists are using it tosupport Genesis. It would be foolish for anyone toreject good research just because someone else is usingit (they think) improperly. All that the evolutionistshave to do is to point out that we stupid creationists areusing their evidence for something they were not evenaddressing. And they will do just that if we persist inmaking that evidence say what it is not saying.

The point, however, is that that evidence is flawed.Why use it at all? The scientific evidence for SpecialCreation is, I believe, very strong. I think we are veryunwise to use any evidence that is tainted or question-able. I do not see how God or his Word can be glorifiedin that way.

The “Out of Africa” situation seems to be a casewhere the self-correcting concept in science has worked.In my book, Bones of Contention (Baker Book House,1992), I point out that the self-correcting concept inscience has worked very poorly. However, to workpoorly does not mean that it never works at all. We canafford to give credit where credit is due.

Auldaney’s statement that I believe that some of theHomo erectus fossils represent true humans is false. Ibelieve that all of the Homo erectus material repre-sents true humans. Auldaney’s idea that some of itrepresents chimpanzees is out of the question. Thecranial capacity of Homo erectus goes from about 700to about 1200 cc—within the lower range of truehumans. No chimpanzee—living or fossil—ever reachedthat range. The average cranial capacity of chimpanzeesis about 400 cc.

Marvin L. LubenowProfessor: Bible/ApologeticsChristian Heritage College2100 Greenfield Dr., El Cajon, CA 92019

Asteroid Hypothesis for Dinosaur ExtinctionMichael J. Oard tells us in a Panorama Note in the

December 1993 issue of the CRSQ that the iridiumanomaly in the Cretaceous-Paleocene (K-T) boundarywas more likely produced by volcanic eruptions (Oard,1993, p. 163), rather than by asteroid impacts.

As in most cases of a controversy, the answer isseldom a clear and simple yes, or no.

I presented a paper at the Twin-Cities Creation Con-ference at Northwestern College in Minneapolis onJuly 30, 1992 based on literature and field research atnumerous fossil and meteorite crater sites. In the courseof these investigations I have acquired a significantcollection of fossils and meteorites, as well as firsthand knowledge. Naturally, as a creationist, I becameinterested in the possibility of meteorite impacts as acause of the Flood of Noah (Auldaney, 1992 and re-printed in 1993).

The majority of creationists and creation scientists(having no previous knowledge or interest in meteor-ites) are skeptical of these new ideas coming fromevolutionists. The strange part is, most of these crea-tionist skeptics have sided with the conservative evolu-

tionists who are trying to hang onto the uniformitariantheory. These creationists repeat the evolution basedarguments against the cataclysmic asteroid impact hy-pothesis (Officer, 1993).

Oard states, “While this flurry of research has beenproceeding, other scientists have been discovering evi-dence that volcanos can explain the observations attribu-table to an impact” (p. 163).

The scientists for the impact hypothesis are in a“flurry of research”; and those against are “discoveringevidence.” This implies that those for the hypothesis aretrying desperately to find evidence to support their pre-conceived conclusions; and those against it have simplyand unbiasedly “discovered” evidence? Wrong! Thoseagainst the hypothesis are just as biased, and in a “flurryof research” to discredit these controversial ideas.

This is the same situation as the mitochondrial “Eve”hypothesis (we all came from one woman) of theevolutionists. See Auldaney, 1994.

Oard points out that iridium has been found in air-borne volcanic ash in eruptions on Hawaii, Kamchatka,and Reunion Island, which was also deposited in layers(Oard, 1993, p. 163 from Officer, 1992 & 1993).

Charles Officer and his group of evolutionary skepticsdo not point out the fact that there are two types oferuptive material: (1) Basaltic (mostly iron and relatedmetallic minerals); an (2) Rhyolite (mostly silicon glassand feldspar).

Most eruptions today are basaltic, like those commonin Hawaii. These eruptions are usually basalt lava flows,which only rarely explodes when water flows into themagma tube.

In the fossil record (including the K-T boundary)most of the volcanic eruptions were explosive, pro-duced from rhyolite lava pulverized into light colored“rainbow” deposits of bentonite or montmorillonite(pulverized glass) (Williams and Howe, 1993, p. 47).

Basalt contains most of the iridium; rhyolite containsvery little (Williams, Matzko, Howe, White, and Stark,1993, p. 172).

As I said, there are no simple answers. According tothe geologic record there were huge, massive world-wide volcanic upheavals, and these no doubt were themain cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs otheranimals, and plants. And it formed most of the iridiumlayer, but meteorite dust was also an ingredient. Bothvolcanic and meteorite iridium are no doubt mixed.

“Soot” from “volcanic eruptions”? (Oard, p. 163).Not very likely. How come geologists do not suggestthat most of our coal and oil is volcanic in origin? Ihave seen lots of soot with plant shapes.

Oard says that no iridium is associated with knownmeteorite impact craters (Oard, 1993, p. 163 fromOfficer, 1992, p. 313).

These craters are formed by iron meteoroids. Irondoes not break up and explode into dust; thereforethey do not spread rare elements in the atmosphere, tofall and produce a layer. However, carbonaceous chon-drites do. One of these exploded like an atomic bombin our atmosphere over the Tunguska region of Siberiain 1908, leaving a layer of rare elements similar to theK-T boundary. These chondrites, when they are filledwith explosive gases, explode or they break up intosmall pieces; either way, they leave no craters.


The geologic evidence indicates the Flood was causedby world-wide volcanic upheaval. But what triggeredthe volcanic upheaval? The breakup of an asteroidcomposed of mostly stoney carbonaceous chondritewith some iron would do the trick. Evidence continuesto mount in favor of this hypothesis. And this evidenceis best explained from a creation viewpoint.

ReferencesAuldaney, J. 1992. Asteroids and their connection to the flood. Pro-

ceedings of the 1992 Twin-Cities Creation Conference. pp. 133-136.Auldaney, J. 1993. Asteroid impacts and their connection to a world-

wide catastrophe. Anomanology Newsletter. No. 1 (July-Septem-ber). pp. 5-8.

Auldaney, J. 1994. Eve theory comments. CRSQ 31:10.Oard, M. J. 1993. The volcanic hypothesis for dinosaur extinction.

CRSQ 30:163.Officer, C. B. 1992. Book Review of “Catastrophic episodes in earth

history.” Palaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Palaeoecology 94:pp. 312-313.

Officer. C. B. 1993. Victims of volcanoes. New Scientist 137 (1861):pp. 34-38.

Williams. E. L., and G. F. Howe. 1993. Fossil wood of Big BendNational Park, Brewster County, Texas: part I—geologic setting,CRSQ 30:47-54.

Williams, E. L., G. T. Matzko, G. F. Howe, R. R. White, and W. G.Stark. 1993. Fossil wood of Big Bend National Park, BrewsterCounty, Texas: part III—chemical tests performed on wood.CRSQ 30:169-176.

Jeremy Auldaney, EditorAnomanology Newsletter10926 Hole, Riverside, CA 92505

REMEMBERTHE CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY

LABORATORY PROJECTUse the envelope in this quarterly to send yourtax deductible donation. Help us establish thecreation model of science.

Response to Comments on theAsteroid Hypothesis for Dinosaur Extinction

In my Panorama of Science article (Oard, 1993), Ipointed out a well-reasoned case by Charles Officerfor the volcanic hypothesis of dinosaur extinction. Froma creationist perspective, the Flood caused dinosaurextinction. The problem is how are the observations atwhat is called the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary to beexplained within the Flood model. Since massive vol-canism was part of the Flood, it is logical that volcanismis a possibility. Charles Officer makes a good case thatvolcanic eruptions can indeed account for most, if notall, the observations, such as the high level of iridiumfound at a small number of supposed K/T boundaries.However, this does not mean that meteorite impactsdid not occur during the Flood.

I did not mean to imply that the proponents of eitherhypothesis have not produced evidence in a “flurry ofresearch.” Of course, both sides are biased. What Ihave noticed in this controversy is that the meteoritehypothesis has received most of the research grants,journal space, and press. Little space has been devotedto the volcanic hypothesis. I also see a “band wagon”effect (Gold, 1989, p. 247), or a reinforcement syn-drome (Oard, 1985, p. 178-179), in this area of research,as well as in many other areas of the historical sciences.It appears to me that those favoring the meteoritehypothesis have overlooked data contrary to their hy-pothesis and have neglected to consider alternativehypotheses. The data is equivocal and their case seemsfar from proved. As Charles Officer (1993) says: “Butthe controversy about the K/T boundary is an illustra-tion of how hypotheses develop in an observationalscience where hard facts are rare.”

In my opinion, Jeremy Auldaney’s hypothesis (1992)that large meteorites started the Genesis Flood is quitereasonable. Impact craters are common on the inner

planets and our moon, which implies that the earthprobably was bombarded at some time in the past. Wefind very few impact craters on the surface of theearth, indicating that catastrophic meteorite bombard-ment would have occurred either before the Flood orduring the Flood. If the pre-Flood earth was a time ofclimatic and geographic stability, it is doubtful that themeteorite bombardment was before the Flood. Theonly possibility left is that the event occurred duringthe Genesis Flood.

I can accept that meteorites also produced some ofthe iridium layers. Within the Flood model, both mech-anisms could explain the layers with a high amount ofiridium, not only at the end of the Cretaceous, but alsoin other layers of their geological column. (I bet that ifscientists looked harder they would find many moreiridium layers.) Therefore, we agree that both mech-anisms could be responsible for the iridium anomalies.I personally am not concerned which hypothesis isfrom conservative evolutionists or neo-catastrophists. Ibelieve each should be evaluated on the “raw data”within the creation-flood paradigm.

I thank Jeremy Auldaney for pointing out that basalteruptions produce the iridium, and that the Tunguskaevent left a layer of rare earth elements similar to theK-T boundary. He is probably correct, but I would liketo see documentation of this interesting information. Iwould also like documentation that the altered volcanicash in the rocks is a product of only plinian volcaniceruptions. It is well known that large subaerial basalteruptions do produce large ash plumes that penetratethe stratosphere (Stothers et al., 1986).

The “soot” claimed by some scientists at the K/Tboundary appears to be a layer with a relatively highcarbon content. The problem is to identify whetherthis carbon is really soot from wildfires. According toOfficer (1993. p. 37) the carbon isotope ratio does notsupport this deduction. Besides, in a Flood model withplenty of rain and a partially to totally flooded earth, itwould be very difficult to start a wildfire, from eithera volcanic eruption or a meteorite impact.

ReferencesAuldaney. 1992. Asteroids and their connection to the Flood. Proceed-

ings of the 1992 Twin-Cities Creation Conference. pp. 133-136.Gold, T. 1989. The inertia of scientific thought. Speculations in

Science and Technology 12:245-253.Oard, M. J. 1985. Ice ages: the mystery solved? part III: paleo-

magnetic stratigraphy and data manipulation. Creation ResearchSociety Quarterly 21:170-181.

. 1993. The volcanic hypothesis for dinosaur extinction.Creation Research Society Quarterly 30:163.

Officer. C. 1993. Victims of volcanoes. New Scientist 137(1861):34-38.Stothers, R. B., Wolff, J. A., Self, S., and M. R. Rampino. 1986.

Basaltic fissure eruptions, plume heights, and atmospheric aero-sols. Geophysical Research Letters 13:725-728.

Michael J. Oard3600 7th Avenue South, Great Falls, MT 59405


NOT SO BLIND A WATCHMAKERRICHARD D. LUMSDEN*

Received 11 May 1993; Revised 15 September 1993

AbstractStructural and operational principles underlying the organization of the vertebrate retina and bacterial flagellar

apparatus are reviewed in the context of William Paley’s classic intelligent designer vs. Richard Dawkins’ con-temporary “blind watchmaker” interpretations of biological origins and diversity. The significance of invertedretinal microanatomy and retinocytophysiology is diagnosed. In the process, Dawkins’ riposte to Paley is refuted.The second example is more contemporary. In terms of biophysical complexity, the bacterial rotor-flagellum iswithout precedent in the living world. To the micromechanicians of industrial research and development operations,it has become an inspirational, albeit formidable challenge to the best efforts of current technology, but one ripewith potential for profitable application. To evolutionists, the system presents an enigma; to creationists, if offersclear and compelling evidence of purposeful intelligent design.

IntroductionAmong the most prized pieces of evidence for the

historical presence of human beings that can be foundin an anthropological dig are tools. A skilled investigatorcan readily distinguish such artifacts (man-made ob-jects) from natural objects, e.g., curiously weatheredrocks, by indications of manufacture (chipping, bevel-ing, etc.) and of purposeful design (i.e., preconceivedutility). The indicated parameter is intelligence— inthis case, the capacity to conceive in the abstract theneed for the implement, thus its application, to engineera design appropriate to the task, to identify the suitablematerial(s), and to devise the technique(s) for its con-struction; in a word, invention.

In the earth’s biosphere, intelligence of that sort isarguably unique to human beings (Morris, 1984). Occa-sionally we witness “tool using” animals—an examplewould be otters using stones to crack the shells of themollusks they eat [while floating on its back, the otterpounds the shellfish against a stone it has placed on itschest]. However, it is likely that otters acquire thisbehavior empirically. Certainly there is no creativeprocess involved (on the otters’ part) where the pro-duction of the instrument itself is concerned, thoughthe activity may strike the observer as “intelligent.”The same might be said for nest building by birds, theconstructions wrought by social insects, etc. But wherethe interpretations of some animal behaviorists on thissubject of intelligence are concerned, and others whowould take it to the cellular level, even, let us be waryof anthropomorphisms (Lumsden et al., 1992, 1993).Evidence of intelligence lies more in design—the in-ventive aspect—than use alone. As Augros and Stanciu(1987) note, the executor of a purpose need not havean intellectual understanding of the phenomenon. Zoo-logically, many purposes are executed from a pre-programmed intrinsic cause, are a prescribed functionof endogenous anatomy and physiology, or are directedreflexively by sense perception [see Tinbergen, 1989,for many pertinent examples]. In any event, here therocks remain unadulterated rocks; in the otter’s pawsthey do not become contrived mallets or anvils. Thedexterous otters only use the rocks, albeit cleverly, thatare available. The same would be true of an Ammo-philia wasp that uses a pebble to seal its nest, eventhough it literally uses its head to hammer the pebbleinto place.*Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D., The Master’s College, Santa Clarita,CA 91322-1450.

Thus, tools, fashioned by design to one degree oranother of intricacy, are diagnostic of creative intelli-gence, therefore of an intelligent cause. It follows thatthe more sophisticated the tools are, the greater theintelligence behind them. Thereby do Archimedes,Leonardo, and Edison warrant our accolades. Fromthe engineering standpoint at least, the wheel, consider-ing all its formats, might be regarded as the penultimateproduct of innovative endeavor. Imagine the excitementif a wheel—of any kind—were one day found beneaththe sands of Mars. Assuming it would not be littertraced back to an earth-based exploratory mission,SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, budgetedfor the present decade at $100 million) would be vin-dicated. Irrespective of its elemental material composi-tion or size, or how it might have been used, no onewould conclude that a wheel, on Mars or anywhereelse, merely happened. Now what if the wheel wasfound as a component of a complex entity, i.e., one ofmultiple, integrated components, and therein accom-plishing definable work? Physical happenstance wouldbe even less credible an explanation.

Biologists who contend that life is solely a productof stochastic, purely naturalistic, physico-materialisticprocesses are faced with the paradox that nowhere issophistication more apparent than in the intricate con-struction of living things. If the discovery of wheels onMars would be greeted as proof of intelligence otherthan earthly humankind, how about finding poweredwheels—spinning at thousands of rpms—in biologicalsystems as components of an engine? Should not thisset one’s intellectual wheels turning, so to speak, wherebiological origins would be pondered?

Argument from Design vs. the Panda PrincipleWilliam Paley was appropriately impressed (well

before the advent of electron microscopy) with thehigh complexity, specificity, and low probability of theliving world. Paley, seeing that it all required a specialexplanation, began his treatise on Natural Theology(Paley, 1802) with an anecdote—that of stumbling acrossa watch while crossing a heath. Paley rhetorically askedhow such an intricately formed object—replete withfinely honed gears, sprockets, and springs (all predi-cated on the principle of the wheel)—could have cometo be in a natural setting. Besides the owner of the lostwatch, of what would it be evidence? Why, irrespectiveof where the watch was found, or how it got there, thevery preciseness and intricacy of its works would be


immediate and clear evidence of the existence of awatchmaker. Watches (ergo wheels) do not just happen.

Following this analogy, Paley went on to extoll thestructure and function of the human eye—as an instru-ment for vision, surely it had an intelligent designer,just as telescopes, microscopes, and spectacles hadbeen intelligently designed to assist it. A more aptanalogy would have been the camera, but that hadyet to be invented. The “Argument from Design” forthe existence of the Creator God (Romans 1:19-20)behind nature was compelling at least for a time to allbut the most hardened skeptics [see, e.g., Mackie’s(1982) discussion of 18th century philosopher DavidHume’s view of theistic causation as an unnecessary,even counterproductive superstition, the view thatPaley would rebut]. Even Charles Darwin, who 50-odd years later would otherwise argue for a purelynatural (vs. supernatural) origin of biological entitiesand their diversity, was perplexed by the example ofthe eye (Darwin, 1859, 1888). Yet it has been said (seeDawkins, 1986. p. 6) that Darwin made it possible tobe an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Apparent ingenuity in biological structure still per-sists as an argument for purposeful design (e.g.,Denton, 1986; Augros and Stanciu, 1987), especiallywhen incorporated in solutions to problems compar-able to those confronting our own technology. Notthe least of the examples cited remains the eye (seeDenton, 1986, pp. 332-333). And doctrinaire evolution-ists persist in derisive analyses of creationist teleology.Thus does Oxford’s Richard Dawkins (1986) present acontemporary “rational” (Hume-anistic) alternative toPaley’s Watchmaker—- viz. the purposeless, mindless,sightless forces of physics, chemistry, and natural se-lection. He, like Peter Atkins (1981), argues that theevolution of complex things is inevitable once therequisite physical conditions are in place. Thus, it wasinevitable, we are to suppose, that one day dinosaurswould take to the air and cows (more specifically, oneof their ungulate ancestors) would go submarine (ref-erence scenarios for the evolution of birds and whales,respectively). Sooner or later, eyes would develop fromthe primitive photoreceptors of “lower organisms.” Andwhat else but naturalistic trial and error would accountfor what Dawkins (see also Gould, 1980, 1986) identi-fies as the imperfections in biological structure includ-ing that of the human eye, but a “blind watchmaker”?Surely, an omnipotent, omniscient Creator would nothave gotten the layout of the human eye so confused,as Dawkins contends is the case for the microanatomyof the retina (Figure 1). Paley’s respect for intelligentdesign of the eye was misplaced—the photoreceptiveprocesses of the rods and cones face away from theincoming light toward an opaque pigment layer at theback of the eye! Light first strikes not the photorecep-tors but a tangle of neurons lying between the lensand layer of rods and cones; the placement of theneurons transmitting the visual signals to the brain isthereby backward. Dawkins (1986, p. 93) conjecturesthat with such restricted passage “. . . through a forestof connecting wires” the light “. . . presumably [suffers]some attenuation and distortion . . . [a] principle . . .that would offend any tidy engineer!”

Professor Dawkins (1986) patronizingly refers toPaley’s argument as made nonetheless “. . . with pas-

A

B

C

D

Figure 1. Microanatomy of the mammalian retina. A, pigment epi-thelium; B, photoreceptors (rods and cones); C, interneurons; D,ganglion cells; E, axons (to optic nerve). Arrow denotes directionof the incident light. After Alberts et al. (1989) and Bloom andFawcett (1975).

sionate sincerity and . . . informed by the best bio-logical scholarship of his day . . .” (p. 5), as he goes onto remark that “Natural selection . . . which we nowknow is the explanation for the existence and appar-ently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose inmind” (p. 5, emphasis added). But, of course, the eyeworks. Evolution makes the best of things after thefact. Per Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould (1980, p. 13)“the proof of evolution lies in its imperfections thatreveal history,” the view expounded in his “panda prin-ciple” (Gould, 1986). Paraphrasing Francois Jacob, heremarks (1980, p. 26) that nature is an “excellent tinkerer,not a divine artificer” and takes “. . . paths that asensible God would never tread” (p. 20).

The Eyes Have ItWhere the best biological scholarship of our day is

concerned, we are fortunate indeed that Dawkins wasnot commissioned to design our eyes, since given theoptical physics, photochemistry and neurobiology in-volved, their present construction is, in fact, the bestway they could have been put together! While a rodcell is responsive to single photons (Baylor et al., 1979),visual receptors have a threshold of intensity belowwhich light is an ineffective stimulus. But more is notalways better. The human eye is only weakly sensitive(respective of discrimination) to direct bright lightcompared to indirect (therefore lower intensity) light,even when appropriately focused by the lens and aper-tured by the reflexive iris/pupil diaphragm (see prin-ciples of the Abbe condenser); thus the significance,from a design standpoint, of light at reduced intensityoff the pigment epithelium impinging onto the “back-ward-facing” photosensitive elements of the rods andcones. The pigment granules receive the light after itstransversal of the translucent neuronal layers (Hamilton,1987) that overlie the rod and cone layer and photo-receptor layer, thus preventing its scattering from the


external ocular tunics and confusion thereby of theimage. Moreover, the human eye works within the700 down to 400 nanometer (nm) wavelength range,thus short ultraviolet (uv) can be filtered (by passagethrough the overlying neural components) withoutconsequence [note, the penetrating power of uv lightis markedly inferior to that of white light]. Many in-vertebrate eyes, however, operate as well in the 300nm range, and their microanatomy is oriented accord-ingly (forward-facing receptors, etc.). Dawkins opinesthat the eye of cephalopod mollusks (octopi andsquids), while otherwise resembling that of vertebrates,is constructed “right side” (vs. “inside” or “wrong side”)out [there are also some significant differences in thestructure of the photoreceptive cells (Figure 2) andmany other anatomical features (Duke-Elder, 1958)].This is hardly perplexing, Where its verted orientationis concerned, the octopus retina needs all the lightintensity it can get—consider the animal’s habitat! Seealso the “shadow-reflex” of these and other inverte-brates (i.e., escape movements in reaction to changesin light intensity—vs. imagery—perceived as the har-binger of a predator). In these instances, then, theverted retina could be an arguable case for properdesign, or as Dawkins would have it, the luck of thedraw.

A

Figure 2. Photoreceptor cells. A rod cell, vertebrate retina. Thephotosensitive membranes are internal discs (d) packing the outer(apical) segment. B. Retinula cell, squid eye. The photosensitiveelements are the microvilli (rhabdomere, mv/r). In both A and B,neural synapses are located at the opposite (basal) pole of the cells(not shown). After Eakin (1963) and Zonana (1961).

But is the inverted anatomy of the vertebrate retinasupportive of Dawkins’ thesis of accidental imperfec-tion during its evolutionary development? Is it indeed“wrong side out‘? Or is it an instance of designedspecialization derived from a general theme? First ofall, there is no evidence that the neural elements over-lying the photoreceptors in the human eye are signifi-cantly diffractive, occlusive, or perturbing otherwiseof the image (Hamilton, 1987). In this respect, the

vertebrate retina is no less “sensibly designed” (Daw-kins, 1986, p. 85), engineering aesthetics (p. 93) not-withstanding, than any other. Where the “illogic” of anexus between the pigmented epithelium and the pho-toreceptor elements is concerned for the human eye(Figure 3), Dawkins might be surprised to learn thatthis also occurs in the mollusk eyes he diagnoses asbeing assembled correctly (i. e., having the receptorsfacing the primary source of the light vs. back on thepigment layer) and in the eye structure of many otherinvertebrates (Figure 4) (Wolkins, 1958; Zonana, 1961;Eakin, 1963). Upon illumination, the pigment granulesmigrate within amoeboid cytoplasmic processes en-twined among the photoreceptors (rhabdomeres), thuseffectively screening scattered light, and return to therearwardly (or in some cases laterally) placed cell bodyin the dark.

Figure 3. Mammalian retina illustrating the intercalation of thephotoreceptor processes of three rod cells with a pigment epithelialcell. Appropriate to their physiological support of the photoreceptors,a high rate of metabolic activity by the pigment cells is indicated bythe numerical density of mitochondria and wealth of other mem-braneous ultrastructure; this metabolic activity is sustained by thebasally approximated (subjacent) choriocapillary network (notshown). Drawn from electron micrographs; see, e.g., Kristie (1979).

The functions pertaining to the allegedly “imperfectdesign” behind this interaction in the human eye aredetailed by Bloom and Fawcett (1975). Besides thosementioned above is the shielding of the photoreceptivemembranes from cytotoxic metabolites, turnover of


Figure 4. Invertebrate photoreceptor-pigment cell interaction. A.Longitudinal section through the distal tip of a photoreceptor cell(left) and adjacent pigment cell (right) in the molluscan retina; notepigment cell processes woven among the labyrinth of photoreceptorcell microvilli and apico-lateral surfaces of the photoreceptor cellbody. B. Distal tip of a coelenterate photoreceptor cell, flanked bytwo pigment cells; note pigment cell interdigitating withphotoreceptor microvilli. Drawn from electron micrographs; seeEakin (1963).

the outer rod segments (phagocytosis of shed discs),and the regeneration of rhodopsin. The latter mostcritical function occurs only if the photoreceptive pro-cesses maintain the intimate relationship with the pig-ment epithelium shown in Figure 3 [it is at this interfacethat clinically significant “retinal detachment,” resultingin partial blindness, takes place]. If the rods and conesfaced the incident light, the same relationship wouldhave to obtain, but then the pigment layer would haveto lie between the photoreceptive processes and thelight; the photoreactive processes would thus be oc-cluded by the opaque pigment epithelium! Meanwhile,were such a bizarre orientation to obtain, the pigmentcells would lose in the process their necessarily in-timate proximity to the physiologically supportivevascularization in the subjacent choroid [the importanceof this feature is emphasized by the condition of dia-betic blindness which results from impairment of thiscirculation].

I am reminded that in our lectures on the eye tofreshman medical students, we begin with the sort ofhyperbolic discourse Dawkins iterates to “bait” theirinterest, but then go on to show how, in fact, theinverted construction of the retina is not abstruse afterall. It is altogether consistent with the physiology atten-dant this productively highly complex visual systemcf. that of invertebrates. Dawkins should have stayedfor the whole class!

That Oxford evolutionists could stand more train-ing in cell biology (at least before writing on the sub-ject) is further exemplified by Dawkins explanationfor the maternal inheritance of human mitochondrialDNA—“Sperms are too small to contain mitochondria. . .” (p. 176). But there is no imperfection in designhere either—these sperms do, in fact, contain mito-chondria, and among the better developed mitochon-dria in existence are those that form the helicoidallyarranged periaxonemal mitochondrial sheaths in humanspermatozoa. The correct explanation is that the spermtail, containing this mitochondrial structure (whichsupplies the chemical energy for its flagellar motility),is shed as the nucleated head enters the egg. Dawkinsmay be aware of that, but his discourse in this instanceis fatuously misinformative. Along with Dawkins’ ob-tuse account of the eye, is this another example ofwhat Francisco Ayala, quoted in the publisher’s book-cover review, exalts as “. . . the relevant zoologicaldetail” on which “The . . . design of organisms andother apparent objections to Darwin’s theory are methead on’? Or, as Isaac Asimov put it “. . . answering,at every point, the cavemen of creationism”? The devilremains in the details.

The fallacies in Dawkins’ presentation generally havebeen reviewed elsewhere (Hamilton, 1987; Watson,1988; Johnson, 1993), and addressed before the factby Denton (1986) and Augros and Stanciu (1987),among others. Meanwhile, neither Paley nor Darwincould have had our appreciation of ultrastructure inthe microworld; nor, apparently, does Dawkins. Be-sides the faux pas cite above, he avoids mentionaltogether of the example to be reviewed below[though its elucidation (Abrams et al., 1965; Cohen-Bazire and London, 1967; de Pamphilis and Adler,1971 a, b) and subsequent additional descriptions hadbeen in print—even in student textbooks—for some-time prior to the publication of Dawkins’ 1986 treatise].

Bacterial MotilityFrom the presumption of biological diversity by

descent with modification, prokaryotic organisms—exemplified in the present by bacteria—are consideredevolutionarily primitive to eukaryotes. Thus, structurein bacteria would be expected to be relatively simple,antecedent to the complexity manifested in the protists,fungi, and the cells of plants and animals. Superficially,that anticipation holds. The prokaryotic cell’s plasmamembrane, for example, serves all of the functions thenuclear envelope, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi appar-atus, mitochondria and chloroplasts assume in eukary-otic cells, with few permanent morphological special-izations. When it comes to specializations for cellmovement, however, biologists were in for a surprise.

Some prokaryotes move over solid surfaces by a yetunclarified mechanism of gliding (Stanier et al., 1980)


reminiscent of gregarine protozoans (Maxwell, 1977).Hildebrand and Vinckier (1975) indicated that ectoplas-mic annular myonemes (Pitelka, 1963) and cytoplasmicstreaming are involved in the gliding of gregarines; theelectron microscopy studies of Stebbings et al. (1974)identified pellicular microtubules as key elements inthe process. However, typical of prokaryotes generally,comparable cytoskeletal elements (actin microfila-ments, tubulin microtubules) do not appear to bepresent in gliding bacteria (vs. gregarines, which areeukaryotes). Spirochete bacteria effect a sinuous swim-ming motion which seems to involve bundles of fila-mentous structures running in the periplasmic space,i.e., that between the cell membrane and the cell wall(Bharier et al., 1971; Bermudes, Fracek et al., 1987).

Figure 5. Eukaryotic cell flagellum. A. The motile axoneme (Ax) iscomposed of 9 peripheral doublet microtubules orbiting a centralpair of singlet microtubules; these axonemal microtubules arise fromthe basal body (BB), composed primarily of 9 triplet microtubules;a structurally supportive fibrous rootlet (R) extends into the cyto-plasm; PM, plasma membrane. Refigured from DuPraw (1968). B.Details of the axonemal microtubules; various proteins interconnectthe doublet microtubules to one another and transiently cross linkthem to the pair of microtubules in the center. Energy is provided bythe ATPase activity of dynein, a protein associated with the “ears” ofthe peripheral doublets. Refigured from Holtzman and Novikoff(1982). C. Interconnected triplet microtubules of the basal body.Refigured from Alberts et al. (1989).

Figure 6. Movement of the axoneme is accomplished by the slidingof the microtubular doublets past each other, which results from thealternate making and breaking of cross-bridges between them andthe central microtubules. The relative displacement of microtubulesduring an “action stroke” is shown sequentially; A, the process “atrest”; B, beginning flexure; C, at maximum flexure, poised for the“recovery stroke.” Refigured from Satir (1967).

Though Bermudes, Fracek et al. (1987) present datasuggestive of a tubulin-like component, these filamentsdo not seem to be homologous to the ubiquitous micro-tubules of eukaryotic cell ultrastructure (Bharier et al.,1971; Bharier and Rittenberg, 1971). Otherwise, manybacteria possess motile flagella, but these are quiteunlike the microtubular flagella/cilia of eukaryotic cells.

The mechanics of eukaryotic flagella are predicatedon the structure of multiple soda-straw-like assembliesof tubulin subunits (forming microtubules per se) andancillary linkage proteins (Goodenough and Heuser,1985), collectively constituting the axoneme (Figure5). A slide-and-catch mechanism of microtubular move-ment is believed to be the basis for its motility (Figure6). Individually, microtubules average about 25 nm(nanometers, 10-9 meters) in diameter. The axoneme isabout 200 nm in diameter. Otherwise, the size of eu-karyotic flagella/cilia is variable from one cell type toanother [such processes, when relatively large andsingular to few in number are conventionally termedflagella; when smaller and numerous, they are referredto as cilia; the lesser used collective term is undulipodiaper Margulis and Bermudes (1985)]. The axoneme arisesfrom a microtubule-constructed basal body whichserves as a nucleation center for the polymerization oftubulin subunits in the formation of flagella/cilia, com-parable for the most part in structure and function tocentrioles and their role in forming the mitotic spindleand microtubular arrangements otherwise (Karsenti andMaro, 1986).

A bacterial flagellum measures 10-20 nm in diameterand up to 10 µm (micrometers, 10-6 meters) in length.It is a single fiber formed of helically arranged subunitsof protein (flagellin) molecules [altogether distinct bio-chemically and with no known relationship otherwiseto eukaryotic tubulin], arising from a basal, granule-like structure anchored in the cell wall/cell membranecomplex (Figure 7). Unlike the motile flagellum/ciliumof eukaryotic cells (Figure 6), the bacterial flagellum


does not bend, but rotates (Figure 7) about its long axis(at rates of 5-10 or more turns per second); collec-tively, the flagella generate sufficient torque to movethe bacterium at speeds up to tens of µm per second.That velocity is impressive, considering that the bac-terium is only one to a few µm long [when ponderingbacterial structure, we have to think small!]. When theflagella are all rotating counterclockwise, they form acoherent bundle that pushes the bacterium in a straighttrajectory; when the rotation is reversed (to clockwise),the flagella fan out causing the bacterium to tumble,and thereby change direction (Berg, 1975; Adler, 1976)(Figure 8).

Figure 7. Bacterial flagellum arising from the cell wall/plasmamembrane complex: the flagellum proper is a helical, relativelyrigid structure that moves by rotation rather than bending, cf. theeukaryotic cell flagellum (Figure 6); circular arrow denotes plane offlagellar rotation; lps, lipopolysacchride layer of cell wall; pg, pep-tidoglycan layer of cell wall; pm, plasma membrane.

So equipped, bacteria are not only remarkably quickand agile, they are responsive to a number of ecologic-ally significant stimuli. The conformations of a varietyof proteins located in the cell wall and/or membraneare affected, e.g., by chemicals in the environment,light, and magnetic fields; signals are thereby generatedwhich are translated to changes in rotational directionof the flagella (Adler, 1976). Specifically, it is a cascadeof protein phosphorylations and, for long-term condi-tioning, methylations (Terwilliger and Koshland, 1984),that couples receptor activation (by chemical ligands,radiation, etc.) to rotational direction of the flagellarmotor (below). Nutrients (e.g., sugars, amino acids)elicit a positive chemotaxis, while noxious (bacterio-toxic) chemicals (e.g., phenol) are repellants (Koshland,1981; Russo and Koshland, 1985). Similarly, photosyn-thetic bacteria swim toward light of a wavelengthappropriate to the function of their photosyntheticpigments, but reverse field on encountering potentiallylethal ultraviolet radiation (Mason, 1991). Some bacteria(e.g., Aquaspirillium magnetotacticum) contain ironparticles (magnetite, Fe3O4) within a sheath associatedwith the plasma membrane (Blakemore and Frankel,

Figure 8. Bacterial swimming. A. When flagella are rotating counter-clockwise, the bacterium is propelled in a straight line (in the direc-tion of the arrow). B. Reversing the rotation to clockwise causes theflagella to splay out, resulting in a tumbling motion of the cell. AfterBerg (1975) and Becker (1986).

1981). Magnetic fields give an orientation to the par-ticles which in turn directs the bacterium to movealong the lines of force. This positive geotaxis guidesthe bacteria toward the optimum habitat—for this spe-cies in particular, which is microaerophilic, one withlow oxygen tensions such as exist at the bottoms ofbogs and marshes.

The Bacterial Flagellar RotorBy far the most remarkable feature of the system is

the rotor mechanism (Figure 9) that drives the flagel-lum. As biomechanics go, it is first of all the penultimateof miniaturization—equivalent in diameter to a singleeukaryotic microtubule. As resolved by electron micro-scopy; it consists of a series of flanges, grooves, andwheels (yes, wheels!) mounted on an axle and turningon bearing surfaces with an efficiency that would bethe pride of any industrial research and developmentoperation. Indeed, such concerns as Stanley Electric’sHotani Molecular Dynamic Assembly Project (whocould care less how the mechanism evolved or did not)are intensively researching its molecular structure and


properties. These include the ability to turn at speedsas high as 18,000 rpm, without lubricants (Koppel,1991; Freedman, 1991) [A reduction principle in the“universal joint” translates this rate to the torque effec-tive rotation, at slower speed, of the flagellum per se].More than academic curiosity is driving Hotani’s re-search; it is being funded at a level of about $2 millionper year by Japan’s Exploratory Research for AdvancedTechnology (ERATO) program.

Figure 9. Motor-rotor complex of the bacterial flagellum. A. Thebasal-most element (motor ring, mr) is turned by electrical energy[from proton (H+) flux across the plasma membrane] against a sta-tionary ring (stator, s) embedded in the peptidoglycan layer of thecell wall, providing the torque transmitted to the axle (ax) and, inturn, the flagellar filament (f); p, proton transport site in the plasmamembrane; b, bearing; h, connective hook (“universal joint”). Semi-schematic, after de Pamphillis and Adler (1971 a, b). Scale bar = 25nm. B. Basal structure of the motor-rotor, drawn from a computerenhanced electron micrograph (Freedman, 1991).

The bacterial rotor mechanism is powered by elec-trical energy. Its basal-most wheel, inserted into theplasma membrane, operates just like the rotor of aninduction motor in conjunction with a stator. Theelectrical current is derived from the flow of ions andattendant gradients across the membrane, most sig-nificant of which is the proton (H+) gradient. Thisestablishes what is referred to in cell physiology asthe proton motive force (pmf, ). The electricalwork potential so generated is expressed as follows(Mitchell, 1961):

where is the pmf in millivolts (mv), ∆Ψ is theoverall membrane electrical potential (in mv), R isthe gas constant, T the temperature (Kelvin), z is theion valence, F is Faraday’s constant (coulomb/mol)and ∆ pH is the differential chemical concentration ofprotons across the membrane (expressed as log l/[H+]).

This parameter (pmf) has heretofore been implicatedin the chemical work functions of oxidative phosphory-lation and photosynthesis (Hinkle and McCarthy, 1978).Here, in the case of the bacterial flagellar apparatuselectromotive potential is transduced directly to me-chanical work, analogously to what intelligent R & Dhas produced in the electrical induction turbine—butone operating in the bacterium at an efficiency unheardof at General Electric.

The details of how the structural components inter-face with the electrical aspects of the system, accom-plishing thereby the rotational force and direction ofspin, are as yet unresolved. One idea is that the ionsassociate with the proteins at their insertion in theplasma membrane. Movement would be generatedby repulsions/attractions between the electrical chargeson the rotor ring and surrounding components. Alter-natively (or coordinately) the ionic gradients mightset off conformational changes in the proteins thatpropel the flagellum.

Like any design destined for wholesale manufacture,the structure of this molecular machine has a blue-print—in the genetic apparatus—which the bacterialcell follows in its construction. Indeed, molecular biolo-gists are identifying the specific genes involved, isolat-ing the protein products [there appear to be at least10 in the motor structure per se, additional proteinscomprising the proton channels, etc.], all in the effortto learn the details of their operation and attempt toreplicate the system in various formats for technologi-cal applications (Freedman, 1991; Koppel, 1991; Stix,1991). Overall, ultramicromechanics are becomingserious business. In 1991, U.S. investment in this typeof research totaled $15 million, $30 million in Japan,and $75 million in Germany; funding of Japanese R &D in this area is expected to rise to $180 million over10 years (Stix, 1991).

Evolutionary ConsiderationsFinally, consider the scale on which this marvelous

apparatus has been developed. Its dimensions are mea-sured in nanometers (billionths of a meter!) A groupof M.I.T scientists recently got star billing in the pagesof Scientific American for their construction of anelectronically powered microwheel (Stix. 1992a). Asimilar project is underway at Case Western Reserve


University (Stix, 1992b). But this albeit extraordinarilyclever bit of engineering is of micrometric dimensions—impressively small, to be sure, but some tens of thou-sands of times more bulky than “nature’s own.” Now,if we are to credit the intelligence at M.I.T. and CaseWestern for their devices (Figure 10), is it logical todiscredit the possibility of intelligent origin for thebacterial rotor-flagellar complex simply because it is“natural”? Where it comes to creating a micromachineforceful enough to move another object, Bell Labora-tories’ Kaigham Gabriel observes (quoted by Stix, 1991,p. 168) that these man-made micromotors “. . . barelyhave enough power to get over their own frictionalloads” [hence the limitations on their technical appli-cations to date]. Getting real work from these ma-chines is a target, not yet a reality. On the other hand,the bacterial nanomachine moves the organism up to30 “body” lengths per second! Note, moreover, wherethis astonishing example of biological complexity, effi-cacy, and efficiency has been found—according tothe evolutionary view, in cells putatively representa-tive of the most primitive of life forms. In its opera-tional principles, however, the bacterial rotor-flagellarapparatus is considerably more sophisticated than theflagella/cilia of “more highly evolved” eukaryotes thelatter operate on linear mechano-leverage forces linkedto conformational changes in proteins energized byATP hydrolysis] which in their ratchet mechanics (Fig-ure 6) are not much more sophisticated than a carjack. This of course is not to disparage the remark-able complexity of eukaryotic flagella/cilia in theirown right, but to point out the the Creator has notrespected phylogenetic hypotheses in terms of rela-tive intricacy. One could argue at the outset, as doBermudes et al. (1987), that where the ultrastructureof the flagellar process per se is concerned, the eukar-yotic type is the more complex; however, when allstructural and biophysical features are considered, Ithink the present view holds. Becker (1986) notes:

Requiring, as it does, the structural equivalents ofa rotor, stator, and rotary bearings, such a mechan-ism [for the bacterial flagellum] was originallyconsidered unlikely, and [is] certainly withoutprecedent in the biological world (p. 685).

Would God use His wisdom to confound the “wise”?The bacterial rotor-flagellar complex does not make acase for teleonomy (below).

Not surprisingly, evolutionists have yet to hazardany specific speculations on how the bacterial flagellarrotor complex might have arisen by the postulatedmechanisms of chance mutation and natural selection.What physiochemical principle would prescribe theinformation for its structure spontaneously? WhileMargulis has proposed a model for the evolution ofeukaryotic “undulipodia”—according to the serial en-dosymbiotic theory (Margulis and Bermudes, 1985;Bermudes et al., 1987)—and Cavalier-Smith (1982) hasone predicated otherwise on endogenous mechanisms—direct filiation within the eukaryotic cell itself—nostructure primordial to bacterial flagella as they existin the present has been identified or suggested, imper-fect or otherwise. It could be argued that with puta-tively billions of years at their disposal, bacteria couldhave evolved complex rotary flagella from rankly

Figure 10. Man-made micromotor wheel. Voltage applied to fourstator elements (s) aligns each of the four rotor blades with therespective stator poles; switching the voltage to the other polescauses the rotor (r) to spin. The rotor (including blades) is approxi-mately 25 µm in diameter; the thickness is about 2 µm. From aphotomicrograph (Stix, 1992b).

primitive ancestry, obliterating in the process of selec-tion such imperfections the “panda principle” wouldpredict. However, it is clear from the details of theiroperation that nothing about them works unless everyone of their complexly fashioned and integrated com-ponents are in place. Gould’s “panda principle” has noapplication here, at least in the evidence. Nor does thesystematic distribution, taxonomically, of flagellatedcf. non-flagellated bacteria correlate with any of thepostulated phylogenetic relationships for the prokary-otes. And, so far as it has been ascertained, the structure/function of this device is virtually the same wherever itis manifested [There are some minor differences be-tween rotor structure represented in gram-positive cf.gram-negative species noted by de Pamphilis and Adler(1971); not surprisingly, this correlates with the differ-ences in cell wall structure that distinguish gram-positiveand gram-negative forms in the first place]. Thus, ifevolution is the answer to its origin, the bacterial flagel-lum had to have come into being by chance not justonce but several times, independently, albeit by thesame sequence of mutations and phenotypic conse-quences no less than 10 megadalton sized and preciselyintegrated protein components, etc.). And quickly, ifcredence is to be given the re-estimations of the timeframe in which prokaryotic origin and diversity, evidentin Archean sediments (Schopf, 1993), occurred (Over-beck and Fogelman, 1989). Then imagine the effects ofnatural selection on those organisms that fortuitouslyevolved the flagella and rotor mechanisms, torque-ingalong at 18,000 rpm, but without the concommitantcontrol mechanisms! Mechanisms coordinated, in terms


of positive selection pressure, with sensory receptorsin tune with a myriad of environmental considerationsspecific for each of the myriad kinds of organismspossessing these flagella . . . as Kurt Vonnegut wouldremark, “so it goes.” For a process which would beproved by imperfections, a lot is expected of evolutionotherwise.

Augros and Stanciu (1987) perceptively diagnoseteleonomy, the thrust of Dawkins’ (1987) thesis, as:

. . . linguistic subterfuge . . . invented to deny theevidence of purpose in natural things. Thus weare unable to see what nature is, and we imagineher to be many things she is not. This is the anti-thesis of good science (pp. 230-231).

[ Teleonomy is a term which has been coined to denotethe pseudo-purposeful functioning of biochemical sys-tems; the illusion of design (Luria, 1973, p. 80)].

Meanwhile, researchers with better things to do thanfantasize about evolutionary origins are learning, orattempting to learn, a great deal of practical sciencefrom the microworld, referring to the endeavor asbionanotechnology. Says Stanford chemist Steven Boxer,“Biomolecular systems have such fantastic propertiesin and of themselves . . . We’ve decided that since wecan’t beat them, we should join them” (quoted byFreedman, 1991, p. 1308). Becker (1986) writes (p. 684)“. . . we must credit nature with the invention of thewheel . . .” (emphasis added; see Introduction). Now,that is intellectually healthy humility. Pray that the nextstep would be a reverence for nature’s Source.

ConclusionAs science would push back the frontiers of our

ignorance, there remain archaic concepts (dating atleast to 1859) of how things in the natural world havecome to be that only a professorial Ph.D. could acceptand blindly defend from the pulpit of pedagogy. Somuch for “blind watchmakers” and the theories theywould contrive. See John 12:40 and 43, in reference toRomans 1:19-20.

Physicist-philosopher Paul Feyerabend asserts (Hor-gan, 1993, p. 36) that:

Scientists develop and adhere to theories for whatare ultimately subjective and even irrational rea-sons” and that modern scientists can be “. . . everybit the equal of ancient myth-tellers, troubadoursand court jesters (p. 37).

Feyerabend, by the way, has defended in principle theattempts to have the creationist version of origins taughtalongside the theory of evolution in public schools[though as far as I know, he is not a creationist himself].In a 1987 treatise Farewell to Reason he warns against“tyranny of the mind,” finding that “The best educationconsists in immunizing people against systematic at-tempts at education” (Horgan, 1993, p. 36).

AcknowledgementsThe author thanks Gaynell Lumsden for help in

drafting the figures, and Michael Girouard, M.D., forhis critical reading of the manuscript and helpful sug-gestions. This study was facilitated by a research grantfrom the Creation Research Society and technical sup-port from the Institute for Creation Research.

ReferencesCRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly.Abrams, D., H. Koffler, and D. Vatter. 1965 Basal structure and

attachment of flagella in cells of Proteus vulgaris. Journal ofBacteriology 90:1337-1354.

Adler, J. 1976. The sensing of chemicals by bacteria. ScientificAmerican 234(4):40-47.

Alberts, B., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and J. Watson.1989. Molecular biology of the cell. Garland. New York.

Atkins, P. 1981. The creation. Freeman. Oxford.Augros, R. and G. Stanciu. 1987. The new biology. Shambhala.

Boston.Baylor, D., T. Lamb, and K.-W Yau. 1979. Responses of retinal rods

to single photons. Journal of Physiology 288:613-634.Becker, W. 1986. The world of the cell. Benjamin/Cummings. Menlo

Park, CA.Berg. M. 1975. How bacteria swim. Scientific American 233(2):36-44.Bermudes, D. S. Fracek R. Laursen, L. Margulis R. Obar and

G. Tzertzinis. 1987. Tubulinlike proteins from Spirochaeta baja-californiensis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences503:512-527.

, L. Margulis, and G. Tzertzinis. 1987. Prokaryoticorigin of the undulipodia: application of the Panda Principle tothe centriole enigma. Annals of the New York Academy ofSciences 503:187-197.

Bharier, M., F. Eiserling, and S. Rittenberg. 1971. Electron micro-scope observations on the structure of Treponema zuelzerae andits axial filaments. Journal of Bacteriology 105:413-421.

and S. Rittenberg. 1971. Chemistry of axial filaments ofTreponema zuelzerae. Journal of Bacteriology 105:422-429.

Blakemore, R. and R. Frankel. 1981. Magnetic navigation in bacteria.Scientific American 245(6):59-65.

Bloom, W. and D. Fawcett. 1975. A textbook of histology. Saunders.Philadelphia.

Cavalier-Smith. T. 1982. The evolutionary origin and phylogeny ofeukaryotic flagella. Symposia of the Society for ExperimentalBiology 35:465-493.

Cohen-Bazire, G. and J. London. 1967. Basal organelles of bacterialflagella. Journal of Bacteriology 94:458-465.

Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of naturalselection. J. Murray. London.

Darwin, F. 1888. The life and letters of Charles Darwin. Volume 1. J.Murray. London.

Dawkins, R. 1986. The blind watchmaker. Norton. New York. [Pagi-nation cited from 1987 paperback edition.]

Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: a theory in crisis. Adler and Adler.Bethesda, MD.

Duke-Elder, S. 1958. System of ophthalmology. Volume I. The eye inevolution. Mosby. St. Louis.

DuPraw, E. J. 1968. Cell and molecular biology. Academic Press.New York.

Eakin, R. 1963. Lines of evolution of photoreceptors. In: Mazia, D.and A. Tyler (editors). The general physiology of cell specializa-tion. McGraw-Hill. New York. pp. 393-425.

Freedman, D. 1991. Exploiting the nanotechnology of life. Science254:1308-1310.

Goodenough, U. and J. Heuser. 1985. Substructure of inner dyneinarms, radial spokes, and the central pair/projection complex ofcilia and flagella. Journal of Cell Biology 100:2008-2018.

Gould, S. J. 1980. The panda’s thumb: more reflections in naturalhistory. Norton. New York.

1986. Evolution and the triumph of homology, or whyhistory matters. American Scientist 74(1):60-69.

Hamilton, H. 1987. The watchmaker surfaces again. CRSQ 24:144-145.

Hess, J., K. Oosawa, N. Kaplan, and M. Simon. 1988. Phos-phorylation of three proteins in the signaling pathway of bacterialchemotaxis. Cell 53:79-87.

Hildebrand, H. and D. Vinckier. 1975. Nouvelles observations sur lagregarine Didymophyes gigantea Stein. Journal of Protozoology22:200-213.

Hinkle. P. and R. McCarthy. 1978. How cells make ATP. ScientificAmerican 238(3):104-123.

Holtzman, E. and A. Novikoff. 1984. Cells and organelles. Saunders.Philadelphia.


Horgan, J. 1993. The worst enemy of science. Scientific American268(5):36-37.

Johnson, P. 1993. The religion of the blind watchmaker. Perspectiveson Science and Christian Faith 45:46-48.

Karsenti, E. and B. Maro. 1986. Centrosomes and the spatial distribu-tion of microtubules in animal cells. Trends in Biochemical Science11:460-463.

Koppel, T. 1991. Learning how bacteria swim could set new gears inmotion. Scientific American 265(3):168-169.

Koshland, D. E., Jr. 1981. Biochemistry of sensing and adaptation ina simple bacterial system. Annual Review of Biochemistry 50:765-782.

Kristic, R. V. 1979. Ultra structure of the mammalian cell Springer-Verlag. Berlin.

Lumsden. R., P. Anders, and J. Pettera. 1992. Genetic informationand McCann’s dual factor paradigm for development and varia-tion. CRSQ 29:63-69.

. and G. M. Lumsden. 1993.Cell biology or “cellular intelligence”? A reply to Dr. McCann’srejoinder. CRSQ 30:64-68.

Luria, S. 1973. Life—the unfinished experiment. Scribner New York.Mackie. J. 1982. The miracle of theism. Clarendon. Oxford.Margulis, L. and D. Bermudes. 1985. Symbiosis as a mechanism of

evolution: status of cell symbiosis theory. Symbiosis 1:101-124.Mason, S. 1991. Chemical evolution. Clarendon. Oxford.Maxwell, R. 1977. Gregarines and hemogregarines. In: Kreier; J.

(editor). Parasitic protozoa, III. Academic Press. New York. pp.1-32.

Mitchell, P. 1961. Coupling of phosphorylation to electron and hydro-gen transfer by a chemi-osmotic type of mechanism. Nature191:144-148.

Morris, H. 1984. The biblical basis for modern science. Baker. GrandRapids, MI.

Overbeck, V. and G. Fogelman. 1989. Estimates of the maximumtime required to originate life. Origins of Life and Evolution ofthe Biosphere 19:181-195.

Paley, W. 1802. Natural theology—or evidences for the existence andattributes of the Diety collected from the appearances of nature.J. Vincent. Oxford.

PANORAM

de Pamphilis M. and J. Adler. 1971a. Fine structure and isolation ofthe hook-based body complex of flagella from Escherichia coliand Bacillus subtilis. Journal of Bacteriology 105:384-395.

1971b. Attachment of flagellar basalbodies to the cell envelope: specific attachment to the outerlipopolysaccharide membrane and the cytoplasmic membrane.Journal of Bacteriology 105:396-407.

Pitelka, D. 1963. Electron microscopic structure of protozoa. Mc-Millan. New York.

Russo, A. and D. E,. Koshland, Jr. 1985. Receptor modification andabsolute adaptation in bacterial sensing. In: Eisenbach, M. andM. Balaban (editors). Sensing and response in microorganisms.Elsevier. Amsterdam. pp. 27-41.

Satir, P. 1967. Morphological aspects of ciliary motility. Journal ofGeneral Physiology 50(6, part 2):241-258.

Schopf, J. W. 1993. Microfossils of the early Archean apex chert: newevidence of the antiquity of life. Science 260:640-646.

Stanier, R., E. Adelberg and J. Ingraham. 1980. The microbial world.Prentice-Hall. Engelwood Cliffs. NJ.

Stebbings, H., G. Boem and P. Garlick. 1974. Microtubules andmovement in the archigergarine, Selenidum fallax. Cell and Tis-sue Research 148:331-346.

Stix, G. 1991. Golden screws. Scientific American 265(3):166-169.. 1992a. Micron machinations. Scientific American 267(5):

106-117.. 1992b. Frothing a raindrop. Scientific American 266(2):128

Terwilliger, T. and D. E. Koshland, Jr. 1984. Sites of methyl esterifica-tion and deamination on the aspartate receptor involved inchemotaxis. Journal of Biological Chemistry 259:7719-7725.

Tinbergen, N. 1989. The study of instinct. Clarendon Press. Oxford,England.

Watson, D. 1987. Book review: the blind watchmaker (see Dawkins,1986, above). CRSQ 24:201-204.

Wolkins, J. 1958. Retinal structure. Mollusk cephalopods: Octopus,Sepia. Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology 4:835-838.

Zonana, H. 1961. Fine structure of the squid retina. Bulletin of theJohns Hopkins Hospital 109:185-206.

A NOTE

Reprinted CRSQ Volume 16Introduction

The Creation Research Society Quarterly has beenpublished since 1964 (30 complete volumes). In aneffort to make these volumes available, all of the miss-ing issues have been reprinted. Brief synopses havebeen written on volumes 1-15 and have appeared inthe previous 15 Quarterlies. In each synopsis, majorarticles are reviewed to give a person interested inscientific creationism a general idea of the contents ofthat volume. Many of the articles are of continuinginterest and value.

ArchaeologyJohn Schmich (1979, pp. 17-21) discussed the disper-

sion of man throughout Asia Minor after the Flood.Items included were topography after the Flood, slowand fast migration, agriculture after the Flood andheadwaters of many of the post-Flood rivers. DavidTyler (1979, pp. 47-58) wrote a comprehensive articleon megaliths and neolithic man. He claimed that theevolutionary concepts of cultural development are in-accurate. Actually evidences of an advanced culturehave been found. He presented all topics includingStonehenge within a Biblical framework of history.The rivers of Eden were the subject of a brief article(Bedigian, 1979, pp. 169-170,153). The rivers mentionedwere the Batin, Karun, Tigris and Euphrates.

AstronomyAn interesting treatise employing electromagnetic

fields was written by Akridge (1979a, pp. 68-72, 83) indefense of a mature creation at the beginning. Theauthor (p. 68) noted that “As part of this mature electro-magnetic field, light from the distant stars was createdenroute from the star to the earth.” Using classicalNewtonian mechanics and general relativity, Akridge(1979b, p. 176-181,192) stated that the big bang modelcannot be used to determine the age of the universe.He derived a modified Hubble’s law and employed itto discuss quasar distances. All postulates were exam-ined within a recent creation framework. The finalarticle in this volume by the same physicist (Akridge,1980, pp. 207-208, 196) concerned Jupiter’s Galileanmoons from the findings of the Voyager I space flight.It was suggested that volcanism on Io and the cratersseen on the moons indicated a recent creation.

BiologyAnatomy

Phylogenetic development of sweat and mammaryglands (Kaufmann, 1979, pp. 75-77) were comparedfrom an evolutionary and a creationist viewpoint. Itwas explained that sweat glands are unique to mammalsand that “. . . there is an up-and-down variation ofcomplexity of sweat glands among the orders of mam-mals . . .” (p. 75). Mammary glands do not followevolutionary phylogenetic predictions. The author


claimed that the observational data correlate with pre-dictions from the creation model.

BotanyBiogeography from a creationist perspective was

examined by George Howe (1979, pp. 38-43). Taxon-omy, geography and plate tectonics in relation to angio-sperms were reinterpreted within a creation model.The author attempted to account for “. . . the strangedisjunctions and bizarre juxtapositions of diverse floralassemblages found today” (p. 43). Klotz (1980, pp. 202203) asked if destruction of parts of a plant is death in aBiblical sense? Then he outlined reasons for his answerto the question.

GeneticsA provocative question was asked by Tinkle (1979b,

pp. 151-153), “Does an embryo climb its tree?” Hediscussed the discredited recapitulation theory whichoccasionally still appears in textbooks. The author ex-plained (p. 153):

Actually, the meaningful resemblances are found,not between embryos and their supposed ancestors,but between adult individuals of different species.Such resemblances are viewed by Creationists asonly what is to be expected, seeing that the dif-ferent species were made by the same Creator.

A more detailed article on this subject appeared in theQuarterly previously (Rusch, 1969, pp. 121-126).Anderson (1980, pp. 197-202) discussed the evolutionarymodel of cellular origins and suggested that the avail-able data would better fit a creation model. Subjectsincluded were Prokaryotae, Eukaryotae, RNA, eubac-teria, urkaryote and archbacteria.

Natural SelectionOver the years many articles have been written from

a creationist viewpoint on this subject. Following thistradition, an analysis of Darwin’s natural selection ideaswere noted. There is no analogy between natural andartificial selection upon which Darwin heavily relied.Hedtke (1979, pp. 89-97, 131, 148) discussed some ofDarwin’s other theories, Malthus’s principle of popu-lation, analogy vs. observation, Biston betularia andwolf predation. This carefully reasoned paper deservesattention. Briefly Tinkle (1979a, pp. 100-101) examinedwhat mutations and selection can accomplish. JerryBergman (1979, pp. 174-175) explored the limitationsof the struggle for existence argument. Often predatorsdo not hunt and kill weaker animals and most of thetime they are at peace with other creatures. At bestnatural selection is a mechanism for preserving thestatus quo.

MiscellaneousHarper (1979, pp. 136-139) claimed that Lyell did

not accept many of Darwin’s postulates. Lyell actuallywas more of a progressive creationist. The origin ofinsect flight only can be satisfactorily explained withina creationist model (Butt, 1980, p. 195). This volume ofthe Quarterly contained a suggested unit on biologicalorigins for the secular classroom (Licata, 1979, pp. 60-

63). The author attempted to achieve an objectivepresentation of both the creation and evolution models.

Canopy TheoryMorton (1979, pp. 164-169) calculated that the envi-

ronmental conditions that would have existed under aproposed pre-Flood vapor canopy for the earth wereimpossible for the existence of life. Dillow (1979, pp.171-173, 175) stated that Scripture does not prohibitthe concept of a vapor canopy around the earth. Acanopy of ice particles about the earth before theFlood was suggested by Westberg (1979, pp. 182-184).Obviously some difference of opinion on canopies wasexpressed.

GeologyConsiderable material on geology was featured in

this volume. Lubenow (1979, pp. 3-7) wrote an interest-ing article on Surtsey, a volcanic island off the coast ofIceland that was “born” in 1963. It was noted that thedevelopment of a mature landscape in days or weeksoccurred on the island! The author explained that thenatural forces behind the rapid formation of the land-scape, water action and volcanism, would have beenactive during the Flood. Thus ancient appearing land-scapes could have formed quickly. Also the terms,ancient or mature landscapes, employed in geologymay be useless.

Continental drift, sea-floor spreading and plate tec-tonics were discussed by Tippetts (1979, pp. 7-15).Rapid sedimentation and rapid burial of fossils werepresented in this essay within the framework of ayoung earth model. A proposal for the comparison ofevaporite formation models within a creationist frame-work was presented by Strate and Christensen (1979,pp. 65-67). The discovery of a charcoalified branch inCretaceous rock was briefly examined by Beierle (1979,p. 87). Three world views, creationism, uniformitarian-ism and secular catastrophism were compared (Strick-ling, 1979, pp. 98-100).

A detailed treatise by Woodmorappe (1979, pp. 102-129) on radiometric chronology is abstracted as follows:

The use of radiometric dating in geology in-volves a very selective acceptance of data. Dis-crepant dates, attributed to open systems, mayinstead be evidence against the validity of radio-metric dating (p. 102).

Three hundred serious discrepancies were tabulated.The Phanerozoic time scale was examined carefully.The use of radioactive dating of rocks as an absolutetime scale was seriously questioned. Cox (1979b, pp.154-162) attributed the formation of drumlins to dilu-vial currents rather than to a glacial origin. Evidenceagainst the index-fossil system of dating and againstcorrelation with other strata by using fossils was pre-sented by Lammerts (1980, pp. 204-206). A “goldmine” of data against the postulates of uniformitarian-ism and evolutionism was compiled by Woodmorappe(1980, pp. 209-219). Topics included examples andtypes of mixing of fossils in the geologic time scale,the subjectivity of fossil species and genera, “ancient”


fossil reefs are not reefs, “ancient” sedimentary envi-ronments and evidence against the validity of the geo-logical column.

Ice AgesDouglas Cox (1979a, pp. 21-29) opposed an ice age

immediately after the Flood and proposed that Floodcurrents caused the erosion often attributed to icemovement. Michael Oard (1979, pp. 29-37, 58) sug-gested a mechanism for a rapid post-Flood ice age. Inthe last 15 years Oard probably has written more onthis subject than any other creationist. In this article hecovers the following subjects:

Requirements for a rapid ice ageCooling mechanismsVolcanic dustSnow coverWarming mechanismPost-Flood climateAbundant source of moistureEffects of a universally warm oceanAvailable moisturePresent continental ice sheetsMelting of the northern hemisphere ice sheets

ThermodynamicsIn recent years there have been attempts to structure

thermodynamic equations to allow for the “creation”of order in spite of the natural tendency for degenera-tion to occur. Generally some type of perturbation orfluctuation, often violent, is theoretically introducedand then “order results.” Williams (1979, pp. 132-136)pointed out the defects in such reasoning. The onlyway to have an ordered universe is to have a Creatorthat designed and established the initial order. Arm-strong (1980, pp. 226-227, 206) used the process ofcrystallization and briefly discussed open and closedsystems to illustrate that the evolutionist counter argu-ment against creationist use of the second law of thermo-dynamics is not valid.

Ark and FloodThe processes that occurred in the Ark during the

Flood were briefly examined by Bray (1979, pp. 16-17). The apocryphal traditions of Noah and the Floodwere discussed by Von Wellinitz (1979, pp. 44-46).Burdick (1979, pp. 130-131) suggested that the storiesof Atlantis may have originated from Flood traditions.

Panorama of TopicsSchirrmacher (1979, pp. 73-74) considered whether

music was a result of natural processes or an abilitygiven to man by a Creator. Several discrepancies be-tween theistic evolution and the Biblical account werepresented by Niessen (1980, pp. 220-221, 203, 232).Strickling (1980, pp. 222-223) offered some insights onthe confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel. Adefense of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, known as“Soapy Sam,” was given by Wrangham (1980, pp. 224-225) This volume of the Quarterly contained an amaz-ing variety of articles as well as many notes, letters andbook reviews.

ReferencesCRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly.Akridge, G. R. 1979a. The mature creation: More than a possibility.

CRSQ 16:68-72, 83.1979b. The expansion of the universe: A study of the

initial conditions. CRSQ 16:176-181, 192.1980. Jupiter’s Galilean moons. CRSQ 16:207-208,196.

Anderson, K. L. 1980. Cellular origins and the three “primary king-doms” A critique. CRSQ 16:197-202.

Armstrong, H. L. 1980. Evolutionistic defense against thermody-namics disproved. CRSQ 16:226-227, 266.

Bedigian, G. 1979. The rivers of Eden. CRSQ 16:169-170, 153.Beierle, F. P. 1979. A new kind of evidence from the Paluxy. CRSQ

16:87Bergman, J. 1979. The natural world: Struggle of the strongest or

balance of all—both the strong and weak. CRSQ 16:174-175.Bray, R. 1979. Inside the ark. CRSQ 16:16-17.Burdick, C. L., 1979. Atlantis and the Flood. CRSQ 16:130-131.Butt, S. 1980. Insect flight: Testimony to creation. CRSQ 16:195.Cox, D. E. 1979a. Controversy about ice ages. CRSQ 16:21-28.

. 1979b. Drumlins and diluvial currents. CRSQ 16:154-162.Dillow, J. C. 1979. Scripture does not rule out a vapor canopy. CRSQ

16:171-173, 175.Harper, G. H. 1979. The species concept in Lyell’s Principles of

Geology. CRSQ 16:136-139, 141.Hedtke, R. R. 1979. An analysis of Darwin’s natural selection—

artificial selection analogy CRSQ 16:89-97, 131, 148.Howe, G. F. 1979. Biogeography from a creationist perspective I:

Taxonomy geography and plate tectonics in relation to createdkinds of angiosperms. CRSQ 16:38-43.

Kaufmann, D. A. 1979. Phylogenetic development of sweat andmammary glands. CRSQ 16:75-77.

Klotz, J. W. 1980. Is destruction of plants death in the Biblical sense?CRSQ 16:202-203.

Lammerts, W. E. 1980. Evidence against evolution found in a geologytext. CRSQ 16:204-206.

Licata, D. P. 1979. A unit on biological origins for the secular class-room. CRSQ 16:69-63.

Lubenow, M. L. 1979. Surtsey: A micro-laboratory for Flood geology.CRSQ 16:3-7.

Morton, G. R. 1979. Can the canopy hold water? CRSQ 16:164-169.Niessen, R. 1980. Several significant discrepancies between theistic

evolution and the Biblical account. CRSQ 16:220-221, 203, 232.Oard, M. J. 1979. A rapid post-Flood ice age. CRSQ 16:29-37, 58.Rusch, W. H. 1969. “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” CRSQ

6:27-34.Schirrmacher, T. 1979. Music: Evolution or creation? CRSQ 16:

73-74, 84.Schmich, J. E. 1979. The dispersion from the homestead of the race

of man. CRSQ 16:17-21.Strate, J. R. and J. M. Christensen. 1979. A proposal for the compari-

son of evaporite formation models within a creationist frame-work. CRSQ 16:65-67.

Strickling, J. E. 1979. Creation, evolution and objectivity. CRSQ16:98-100.

1980. The Tower of Babel. CRSQ 16:222-223.Tinkle, W. J. 1979a. What can mutation and selection accomplish?

CRSQ 16:100-101.1979b. Does an embryo climb its tree? CRSQ 16:

151-153.Tippetts, M. W. 1979. Pangaea shattered. CRSQ 16:7-15, 83.Tyler, D. J. 1979. Megaliths and Neolithic man. CRSQ 16:47-58Von Wellnitz, M. 1979. Noah and the Flood: The apocryphal tradi-

tions. CRSQ 16:44-46, 59.Westberg, V. L. 1979. Floodtime changes in the earth’s heating and

lighting. CRSQ 16:182-184.Williams, E. L. 1979. Evolution and fluctuations—a creationist evalu-

ation. CRSQ 16:132-136.Woodmorappe: J. 1979. Radiometric geochronology reappraised.

CRSQ 16:102-129..1980. An anthology of matters significant to crea-

tionism and diluviology: Report CRSQ 16:209-219, 227.Wrangham, R. 1980. The Bishop of Oxford: Not so soapy. CRSQ

16:224-225.Emmett L. Williams*

*5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092.


fde

THE EVOLUTION OF GEOLOGICAL ORIGINS THEORIES:PART I—THE HAYMOND INTERBEDS, MARATHON BASIN, TEXAS

GEORGE F. HOWE* AND EMMETT L. WILLIAMS**

Received 18 June 1993; Revised 20 September 1993

AbstractIn this paper we demonstrate that rock sections, settling tank experiments, fossil reevaluations, and paradigm

changes have been the basis for producing several different and conflicting theories concerning the origin ointerbedded sandstone and shale strata known as the Haymond flysch. We show that when new models arise, olgeological explanations may still remain viable. Debate and uncertainty ultimately prevail and this is perhaps thway it ought to be since no one can observe ancient origins.

IntroductionThe Nature of Theories for Rock Genesis

In historical geology it is not possible to observe thesynthesis of ancient strata. Likewise it is impossible toperform experiments directly on how any given rockformation was deposited. Its origin was a unique occur-rence and perhaps differed from comparable eventsthat we might presently study.

In order to deduce the time and the means by whichvarious rock layers formed, historical geologists mea-sure the extent and the rates of contemporary phe-nomena such as sedimentation. Then they attempt todecide which processes, working when and at whatrates were involved in the production of existing beds.Quite often historical explanations are based on fieldand laboratory analyses of fossil and rock samples.When new analytical techniques are devised, moresophisticated origins scenarios are deduced, often dif-fering substantially from the earlier views.

From the standpoint of philosophy, historical geolo-gists also rely heavily on ruling hypotheses calledparadigms, which are exemplified by the geosynclinetheory, the plate tectonics paradigm, and others. Whennew paradigms are envisioned, pre-existing originsmodels are revised or apparently discarded in favor ofnew ones having greater fit with new paradigms andnew data analyses. After various scenarios have beendevised, however, certain workers may notice weak-nesses in the latest models and may return to one of theearlier views that seemingly had been abandoned. Atany particular time, several explanations may retain alimited and lingering popularity with a segment ofscholars.

Studying proposals for the synthesis of the Haymondformation can serve as an example of how explanationschange in response to all of the foregoing factors. Inthe case of the Haymond, no particular origins modelhas emerged as permanently triumphant. Here we dis-cuss the Haymond flysch and in a future publicationwe intend to explore the various theories for the genesisof the phenomenal Haymond boulder beds.

The Marathon Basin DescribedIn Brewster County, West Texas, near the city of

Marathon, lies a famous series of geological strata about5,000 meters (m) thick called the Marathon Basin.

*George F. Howe, Ph.D., The Master’s College, Santa Clarita, CA91322-1450.

**Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D., 5093 Williamsport Dr., Norcross, GA30092.

These many layers are exposed in a roughly rectangu-lar basin (McBride, 1970, p. 67). The rocks of the basinare deformed, being strongly folded and trending NEto SW

All of the strata in the Marathon Basin are assignedto the Paleozoic era of theoretical geologic time. Theyare capped by an alluvium which has been judged tobe from the supposed Quaternary period of the Ceno-zoic era. Paleozoic strata to the north of this openingare not visible because they are covered by layersattributed to the Permian period. Paleozoic rocks lyingto the east, south, and west are obscured by overlyingCretaceous beds. P. B. King (1937, p. 1) noted that theMarathon Basin is thus a window or opening into thePaleozoic amidst areas where the Paleozoic is otherwiseobscured from view:

. . . the region is a broad dome of Cretaceousrocks, from whose central part the Cretaceouscover has been stripped away, leaving an area oflow country in the center, the Marathon Basin.

This basin is part of a much larger unit called theOuachita Geosyncline which extends westward fromMississippi across central Arkansas, southeastern Okla-homa, and into Texas: The Marathon uplift is a topo-graphic low situated on an uplifted part of the OuachitaGeosyncline. (McBride, 1970, p. 67)

Moving consecutively from bottom to top, oneencounters the following rock members of the Mara-thon Basin: Dagger Flat, Marathon, Alsate, Fort Pea,Woods Hollow, Maravillas, Caballos, Tesnus, Dimple,Haymond, and Gaptank. The Tesnus, Dimple, andHaymond formations are designated as Mississippianwhile part of the Haymond and the overlying Gaptankhave been relegated to the Pennsylvanian period(McBride, 1969, pp. 1-3). Although models for explain-ing the origin of the Tesnus and other Marathon Basinstrata hold interest, we center here on only the Hay-mond formation, particularly the Haymond flysch.

The Haymond Interbeds DescribedOn various trips to the Marathon Basin between

1985 and 1992, the authors have examined an exposureof the Haymond formation particularly at a roadcutcliff adjacent to Highway 90, about 24 km east ofMarathon, Texas. The cliff exposure reveals nearlyvertical strata (Figures 1 and 2). We also examinedother road cuts and outcrops. Excerpts from a nearbyTexas Department of Highways sign are as follows:


Figure 1. Haymond formation layers. In this view one is lookingnorthward at a road cut along Highway 90, about 15 miles east ofMarathon Texas. Note soil creep caused by gravity. Photograph byE. L. Williams.

Figure 2. Another view of the Haymond formation. Photograph byE. L. Williams.

In highway cuts toward the east are excellent ex-posures of almost vertical rock layers, part of theOuachita Fold Belt—northeasterly trending, foldedand faulted mountainous range which was upliftedabout 275 to 290 million years ago. The deforma-tion is comparable in age to the uplift that formedthe Appalachian Range of the eastern United States

In the hillside toward the northeast, the highlydeformed strata are overlaid by almost horizontallayers of younger rock—formed about 135 millionyears ago. Erosion wore down the old mountains,and when the area was again covered by the sea,the horizontal layers were deposited on the seafloor. Later uplifting earth movement comparablein age to the forming of the Rocky MountainRange gently elevated this area, exposing it toerosional forces which have shaped the topographyseen today.

The lower and middle members of the Haymondconsist of repeating interbeds of sandstone, siltstone,and shale (Flores, 1974, p. 709). It was estimated byMcBride (1969, p. 15; 1966, p. 1) that there are morethan 15,000 such separate sandstone beds in this alter-

nating Haymond series. In its entirety, the Haymondhas a composite depth of about 1,300 m (Ross, 1981, p.139). McBride described the interbed layers as involv-ing “. . . fine and very fine-grained sandstone and darkgray shale less than one foot thick” (1966, p. 88).

A repeating series of sandstone and shale strata likethese is called a flysch (Dietz 1970, p. 124) and thesequence visible in Figures 1 and 2 is known as theHaymond flysch. The Haymond flysch and other sec-tions of the Haymond formation crop out along thesoutheast, east, and northeast areas inside the MarathonBasin.McBride (1970, pp. 80-81) gave a brief review of theuse of the word flysch for various Texas strata. Henoted that Waterschoot van der Gracht (1931, Table 3)was the first to call some Marathon Basin beds flyschby applying the term to the Tesnus and lower Hay-mond. King (1931) also started to use the word flyschfor Haymond beds and the Tesnus. In 1964 Thompsonand McBride classified portions of the Dimple forma-tion as flysch.

The Tesnus and Dimple Formations which lie strati-graphically below the Haymond are also largely flyschinterbeds. Whatever can be said about the parade ofchanging explanations for the origin of the Haymondmay possibly apply to the Tesnus and Dimple as well.In the upper Haymond are several amazing boulderbeds also known as wildflysch. McBride (1966, p.59)was the first to call these boulder beds wildflysch. Weshall consider data and viewpoints concerning the originof the boulder beds in a subsequent report.

The Geosyncline Theory Reviewed as BackgroundThe geosyncline paradigm was originated by Hall in

1859 and popularized by Dana in 1873. It involves thebelief that great sinking basins fill gradually with sedi-ment under conditions of shallow water (Kummel,1961, p. 65). The sedimentation was believed to befollowed inexorably by folding, faulting, and upliftingso that mountains arose in areas where sedimentarybasin originally prevailed.

“In spite of the great thickness of rocks in geosyn-clines, there was the belief that at no time was thewater very deep” (Foster, 1971, p. 355, emphasis ours).Geologic deposits attributed to geosynclines often showsuch phenomena as cross-bedding, ripple marks, mudcracks, and fossils of shallow water life forms. Thesecharacteristics were interpreted to mean that the stratain the geosyncline were deposited in shallow water. Itwas imagined that shallow water prevailed for eonsand it was also postulated that a geosyncline subsidedat the same rate that the sediments were deposited inits shallow water (Kummel, 1961, p. 65).

According to the paradigm, mountains arose later,after the thick wedges of sediment had accumulated.It was not clear in the model how the basin sedimentsbecame converted into mountain ridges, or what causedthe uplift. Kummel (1961, p. 65) offered the followingsuccinct definition by which a geosyncline is called a“surface that subsides as additional layers accumulate.”We shall see how this ruling hypothesis influencedearly attempts to explain the Haymond interbeds. Thenwe shall note how other historical geological theoriesabout the Haymond flysch were devised from 1940 tothe present.


The Haymond Formation, Shallow Water OriginsTheories, And The Original Geosyncline Paradigm—

The 1930sThe early opinions of P. B. King (1937, pp. 88, 91)

concerning how the Haymond strata might have formedwere undoubtedly influenced by the prevailing geosyn-cline theory and its shallow water corollary. King be-lieved that: “the Pennsylvanian rocks of the Marathonwere laid down in a geosyncline” (p. 87), as evidencedby their great thickness and other geological features.Concerning the Haymond strata King also assertedthat the “water in which its sandstones and shales werelaid down was brackish or fresh, rather than marine”(p. 89, emphasis ours). By a study of the enclosed plantremains, which he judged to be land plants and to bewater-worn, King proposed that they had been “washedfor considerable distances from their place of growth”(p. 87). He reasoned that the plant remains (and byextension, the entire Haymond deposit) “might there-fore have been laid down in a shallow sea” (p. 87,emphasis ours).

Six years earlier, Van Waterschoot Van Der Gracht(1931, p. 1040) had briefly reported the views of Powersconcerning the shallow origin of the Haymond as fol-lows: “Powers believes that the entire deposit is a deltaicor beach formation” (emphasis ours). Two years priorto that, P. B. King and R. E. King (1929, p. 911) hadalready gone on record attributing the Haymond for-mation to a geosyncline. Shallow water basin or deltaicschemes of development for Haymond strata werepopular at first and were based on the prevailing para-digm which also stressed deposition in freshwater. Buteven then there was a certain amount of unrest withthis generalized idea and that dismay was registeredby P. B. King (1932, p. 148):

The peculiar character of the mudstone matrix,and of the associated arkoses and regularly beddedsandstones and shales is suggestive of unusual con-ditions of sedimentation, and perhaps an unusualclimate (Emphasis ours).

Enter an Understanding of Turbidity Currents, GradedBedding, and Deep Water Marine Sedimentation—

The 1940’s and 1950’sIn the late 1930s Kuenen had already begun to study

submarine canyons in the ocean. He espoused a dif-ferent view of sedimentation involving deep waterand he initiated a series of classic laboratory experi-ments to test the mechanism. Likewise Migliorini in-dependently found field evidence to support sedimen-tation in deep water. References to Migliorini’s earlypapers and an excellent history of the development ofthis new paradigm is in Kuenen and Migliorini (1950).

“Current bedding” is known to occur when sedimentsare deposited in shallow water. It entails cross-beddingand ripple marks, as we previously noted. By way ofcontrast, “graded bedding” generally manifests few ornone of these current marks but instead shows a gradualtransition in grain size from coarse below to fine abovein each one of the repeating members. Often suchgraded beds occur in a series which may be quitethick. Each member of the series may also have a vastlateral extent.

Graded bedding is characteristic of sedimentation indeep water and was shown by Kuenen to originate

experimentally when water currents containing parti-cles of a wide size range were periodically injectedinto deep standing water. Similar bursts of sedimentladen water can come in nature from dust storms,storm waves, volcanic explosions, spring runoff, andflood water entering sea water. Strata with repeatinginterbeds such as sandstone and shale are thought tohave been formed by turbidity currents entering deepstanding bodies of water and hence the rocks them-selves are known as turbidites.

Kuenen and Menard (1952) published results of theiroutstanding experiments in which water charged withsediments was repeatedly released through a channelinto water which stood within a settling tank. By thismeans they were able to produce deposits in the labwhich closely resembled turbidities in nature. Kuenenand Migliorini (1950, p. 9) concluded that naturallyoccurring turbidities had been produced this way.

Bouma (1962) reported on turbidities found in cer-tain beds in the Alps and devised a series of lithologiccriteria for identifying and classifying these strata mi-croscopically. Bouma’s criteria have been acceptedand widely used by geologists. Kuenen (1967) con-tinued his experimental studies and concluded thatonly turbidity currents in deep water (not normal cur-rents in shallow water) can account for flysch typesandstone beds.

Turbidity Currents Applied to The Origin of theHaymond Formation—The 1960s

McBride began using this information about gradedbedding and turbidity currents to propose a new theoryfor the origin of the Haymond flysch of the MarathonBasin. Casting aside the earlier shallow water ideology,McBride saw Haymond beds as turbidities that musthave been deposited in deep water (1969, pp. 16, 86-90). He noted (1966, p. 1) that in the 15,000 separateHaymond layers, “no fossils indicative of shallowwater” could be found. Incidentally, McBride (1966, p.8) also stated concerning the fossils of the entire Hay-mond series that (with only two exceptions) they wereof no stratigraphic value. After careful lithologic study,the many sandstone members of the Haymond rangingin thickness from about 25 centimeters down to a fewmillimeters, were attributed to “deposition from waningcurrents of high initial velocity” (McBride, 1966, p. 1).

Dean and Anderson (1967) showed that these tur-bidity currents had evidently been quite widespread.Using the criterion of thickness, they successfully cor-related siltstone and claystone couplets between twoHaymond flysch outcrops that were separated fromeach other by 10.5 km.

Johnson (1962) had discovered grooves, flute casts,and bounce casts (all characteristic of true turbidites)on the lower surfaces of alternating couplets in theTesnus formation and he therefore attributed the genesisof the Tesnus strata to turbidity currents as well.

McBride (1966, p. 1) theorized that the Haymondbeds were produced in a marine basin “that was fromseveral hundred to several thousand feet deep,”—emphasis ours. The Tesnus and Dimple formationslying beneath the Haymond were also labeled as deepwater flysch deposits. In his brief but instructive his-tory of this topic, Flores (1972, p. 3415) noted thatMcBride had based his conclusions on “internal struc-


ture, bedding surface structures, and grain size of sand-stone beds.”

McBride (1966, p. 18) believed that Haymond rocksections manifested the expected graded bedding underthe microscope. McBride confessed, however, that truegraded bedding (in which grain size itself changesfrom large below to smaller above) was not as commonin the Haymond flysch as was a peculiar form ofbedding in which the quartz grain size remained rela-tively constant (from the bottom to the top of a givenbed) but the clay content increased as one approachedthe top section of the sandstone bed.

Still, McBride clung to the mechanism of turbiditycurrents and rested his case as follows:

(1) they are interbedded with shale that is bestinterpreted as a deep-water deposit, and (2) in-ternal structures suggest that they were depositedby waning currents that initially had high velocity. . . the sandstones have sole marks, graded bedding,and convolute bedding that are typical features ofalleged turbidites. (1969, p. 89)

This new origins view was a distinct departure fromthe shallow, freshwater, and deltaic explanations popu-lar in the 1930s. The stimuli that fostered the changeapparently were the data from the experimental settlingtank and Bouma’s field and microscope work on gradedbedding. Consequently the geosyncline paradigm wascoupled with deep water (rather than shallow water)sedimentation and a marine, rather than a freshwater,environment. By 1958 even R. B. King had modified hisstance and had converted to a deep water Haymondorigins scenario (1958, p. 1734). King expressed thepredictive belief (1958, p. 1732) that the mechanismfound for the Marathon Basin strata would ultimatelyfit with the studies of Kuenen and his students (meaningBouma and others).

Further Information ConcerningTurbidity Currents and Sedimentation

There is much evidence that turbidity currents occurin lakes and oceans whenever dense, turbulent, andsediment-containing water flows under the standingwater which is less dense (Hamblin, 1975, p. 92; Shelton,1966, p. 35). A cross section of Lake Mead in Figure 3shows the effects of such currents. This is a cutawayview along the Colorado River in the western GrandCanyon and Lake Mead area. It shows deposition whichoccurred during the first 11 years after the lake was

formed. The arrow below indicates the mouth of thecanyon at Grand Wash Cliffs; the western GrandCanyon is to the right of the arrow whereas LakeMead is to the left. The ordinate represents the relativeabundance of sediments. As it loses speed and energy,the turbidity current deposits and sorts the heaviestparticles first, and the successively lighter ones later.After the current has dropped its heavier particles,(presumably, forming a sandstone layer called a tur-bidite) a layer of much lighter particles (silt and mud)is deposited, forming shale, as McBride thinks hashappened in the Haymond interbeds. Such a shalelayer above a sandstone member is called a pelagite.The whole process is repeated with the next pulse ofsediment-laden water flowing into the standing waterand producing the next bed of turbidite sandstonefollowed by more of the shale (another pelagite).

Turbidity currents have been studied in Lake Meadwhere they have been observed to travel distances ofup to 125 km (Scheidegger, 1961, pp. 23-24). In theocean, turbidity currents caused by earthquakes havetraveled with speeds measured as great as 52 miles perhour and with enough force to break telegraph cableson the ocean floor 300 miles from the epicenter(Hamblin, 1975, p. 319; Roth, 1975). The calculatedvolume of sediment in just one such current generatedby the earthquake off the Grand Banks of Newfound-land in 1929 was 100 km3, carpeting 20,000 squaremiles of sea floor with sediments up to one meter indepth (Sullivan, 1974, pp. 44-48).

Concerning this same earthquake, Hodgson (1964,pp. 23-24) noted that the resulting turbidity current had:

. . . tremendous erosional powers. The fact thatan earthquake triggered this particular current isnot to imply that they can be started only in thisway. Any accident which starts material movingdown the continental slope can cause a current,although perhaps only an earthquake can causesuch a big one.

Strahler (1977, p. 148) observed that:On continental shelves and deltas of large rivers,mud is continually accumulating and may formprecariously situated deposits that are easily dis-turbed and sent sliding by storm waves or earth-quake shocks.

Longwell and Flint (1964, p. 298) reported thatturbidity currents occur frequently. Concerning the

TURBIDITY CURRENT DEPOSITS DELTA DEPOSITS

MILES FROM GAGING STATION LOCATED WHERE BRIGHT ANGEL CREEK ENTERS COLORADO RIVER

Figure 3. Idealized diagram of turbidity and delta deposits, Lake Mead. a = course sand and gravel. Figure by E. L. Williams after Shelton(1966, p. 35).


same 1929 current mentioned earlier, they indicatedthat: “similar events have occurred at least twice ateach of 40 localities around the world within the past74 years.”

Were Turbidity Currents Associated with The Flood?We believe that the Haymond deposits may have

been produced by a series of turbidity currents gen-erated in a relatively short time span by volcanic,meteoric, or tectonic processes. A rapid formation ofHaymond interbeds is also suggested by the generalconformity of these many layers to each other. Thisrapid and catastrophic role of turbidity currents in theorigin of strata was stressed by Roth (1975) and morerecently by Howard (1992).

One wonders what conditions might have prevailedto set the stage for turbidity currents which may haveproduced the Haymond formation. Moore (1989) spec-ulated that during the Paleozoic Era an inland seacalled the Ouachita trough covered this area of Texasand extended northeastward into Arkansas and Okla-homa. This deep-sea trough is thought to have receivedvast quantities of sediment from the north. Turbiditycurrents pouring into this large body of water mighthave deposited the sedimentary beds that eventuallybecame the Haymond Formation. Catastrophists couldargue that the Ouachita Trough developed near theend of the Flood. If so, it may have served as a sitethrough which flood waters moved from the north tocause turbidity currents that deposited the sedimentsof the Haymond flysch.

Whitcomb and Morris (1960, p. 269) spoke of thepossibility that turbidity currents operated during andafter the Flood:

The newly-deposited sediments were still relativelysoft and unconsolidated, and the imposition ofnew gradients and currents over them when thelands began to rise would have immediately in-duced scouring action on a large scale. The mixtureof water and mud thus formed would, in flowingdownslope, itself cause tremendous submarineerosion and ultimate redeposition. The great sedi-mentary competency of these turbidity currents. . . has only been appreciated in recent years buthas been adequately demonstrated both by fielddata and laboratory studies.

They also speculated that rapid action of turbiditycurrents may have caused the banding or laminationsevident in certain other deposits such as the GreenRiver oil shales—(Whitcomb and Morris, 1960, pp.427-428).

Surprise—A Return to A Shallow WaterHaymond Scenario in The 1970s!

During the six years from 1969 to 1975 Flores turnedthe tables by reinterpreting most of the data to supportwhat he called a “short-headed stream delta model”for the Haymond. After a brief preview (1969), in 1970Flores published a larger work in which he asserted that:

Present studies . . . of this formation suggest thatthe Haymond need not have been of deep waterorigin but that a deltaic origin is equally likely.(1970, p. 621).

Flores argued (1970, p. 626) that the flysch couldhave formed at a delta front which continually “. . .received pulse-like influxes of sediments during periodsof heavy rainfall in the source area.” He believed thatthe turbidite interbeds were of slightly deeper (deltafront) origin and he attributed the upper, coarse grained,Haymond sandstones to the delta plain (1975, p. 2288).He supported his reinterpretation by gathering monu-mental amounts of field data and performing numerouslaboratory rock analyses (Flores, 1972, 1974).

He envisioned a shallow-water deposition in a delta,as Powers had done and argued that:

the origin of the turbidite portion of the sequenceis not necessarily deep water, and the presence ofcarbonaceous shale, coal, and “seat rock” typesandstone favor a very shallow and perhaps sub-aerial environment. (Flores, 1970, p. 622)

Upon analysis of rock sections, he consistently notedsuch features as cross-bedding, an upward increase ofquartz grain size, and other phenomena which hebelieved to be in direct conflict with the classicalBouma criteria for true deep-water turbidites (Flores,1974, p. 709).

In his concluding and summary report of 1975,Flores compared modern day delta deposits to hisdelta-based Haymond scenario. Modern day deltasoften consist of fine deposits below, made at the deltafront. The deltas have coarser sediments above be-cause delta plain sediments eventually bury the existingdelta front strata. This pattern, Flores argued, alsoapplies in general to Haymond strata. Flores observed,however, that Haymond rocks differ in some waysfrom ordinary delta deposits. He attributed all of theHaymond flysch sandstones to the delta front and thecoarse sediment plus boulder beds of the upperHaymond to the delta plain sediments. Flores admittedthat with flysch below and boulder beds above, thissupposed Haymond delta would have been differentthan typical modern deltas such as those of the Fraser,Niger, or Orinoco Rivers. These differences, Floresconcluded, arose because the source area for thetheoretical Haymond delta was “much closer to thesite of deposition than in modern deltas” (1975, p.2297). The extreme proximity of source area to deltadeposition site, he believed, explains the unusual re-semblance of the lower Haymond strata to deepwater turbidites (which he labeled merely “flysch-like”). He supported these conclusions by field analy-ses of the delta produced by a short-headed streamwhich empties into Lake Erie in western New York(Flores, 1970).

While some other workers had imagined that thesource area for Haymond sedimentary material wasfrom the north, Flores argued that it came from anadjacent river to the southeast. The issue of sedimentsource and dating of rocks in the boulder beds will bediscussed in Part II.

Life after The Delta DebutDuring this flurry of revisionist thought concerning

the Haymond genesis, McBride (1970, 1973) appearsto have continued stressing the Haymond featureswhich he believed to support the deep water turbidityview. Where Flores appealed to a present day delta in


a New York river, McBride described the Var, a river inFrance which enters the Atlantic and has a deep sub-marine channel through which continental debris canflow into deep ocean water to create turbidity currents(McBride, 1970).

McBride (1970, p. 80) did briefly mention Flores’1969 presentations and described Flores’ proposed del-taic environment with water that was shallow enoughto permit plant growth. Although Flores’ work is dis-cussed on p. 80, a reference to Flores’ 1969 abstractwas missing in the reference list, p. 82. This was appar-ently an inadvertent publishing omission.

The turbidity current concept was also still verymuch alive in the thinking of Ross (1981) who treatedthe Haymond formation as a turbidity deposit. Curi-ously, Ross made no mention of any of the papers byFlores regarding the deltaic view; one wonders if Rossignored them or if he was completely unaware ofFlores’ work. In 1975 King again discussed the originof the Haymond from a deep water standpoint but helikewise avoided reference to any of Flores’ papers.

In a brief abstract appearing more recently (1982, p.559) McBride asserted once again that the entire seriesof Marathon Basin strata (except the Gaptank) “is bestinterpreted as slope and basinal deposits.” Thus despiteFlores’ persuasive rationale for a delta front and deltaplain mechanism, McBride, Ross, and King appear tohave remained firmly convinced that the Haymondinterbeds were of deep water turbidity current origin,paying little or no attention to Flores, except to mentionhis abstract (1969) once—McBride (1970, p. 80).

In 1992, Howe wrote to Flores asking what waspresently happening in the Haymond debate. In acordial reply, Flores (1992) indicated that since 1975his own research emphasis had changed and that hehad temporarily ceased from further investigations ofthe Haymond. Flores supposed that the Haymond ori-gins debate still continued. He indicated having heardfrom former coworkers that his original delta view forthe Haymond had been turned into a similar alluvialfan delta concept.

Future studies might center on apparent conflictslingering in the evaluation of scientific data. Doesmicroscopic analysis generally reveal the Bouma signsfor turbidites (as McBride believed) or does it show astrange type of bedding best explained by the deltadeposition of Flores? Do the plant fossils betray ashallow water environment (as Flores maintained andas was claimed in the 1930s) or are these fossils of littlestratigraphic significance or even nondescript as Mc-Bride implied? An open field of continuing scientificand theoretical study beckons those who possess theskills, energy, and insight required.

Summary and ConclusionsEarly concepts of Haymond interbed formation were

based on shallow water and freshwater deposition, inclose keeping with the original geosyncline paradigm.Deep water turbidity currents were then discoveredand their profound effects were noted in the 1940s and1950s. Shallow water ideas gave way in the 1960s tothe concept that Haymond strata were actually a seriesof deep water turbidites. Such conclusions were basedon rock analyses and application of the diagnosticcriteria that had been advanced by Bouma or theidentification of turbidites.

Extensive scientific analysis of the same beds, how-ever, led Flores in the 1970s to the opposite conclusionthat Haymond strata do not actually satisfy establisheddeep water turbidite criteria. He maintained that theywere probably produced in shallow water by the deltaof a short-headed stream. The origin of the Haymondinterbeds still remains an open question.

Catastrophists are fascinated by the rapid sedimen-tation rates made possible by turbidity currents. Yetwe realize that if a deltaic model for the Haymondultimately gains greater scientific credence, rapid deltaformation could have occurred during the intensedraining of inland seas toward the end of the Flood.Even at present it is recognized that delta formation onmajor rivers can occur with astounding speed. ConsultSeeman (1942, p. 196), Miller (1948, p. 218), and Thron-bury (1969, p. 169) who recognized rapidity in deltaformation but still imagined that in many cases theprocess took millions of years. Some young earth catas-trophists have also written about the speed of deltadeposition (Allen, 1972; Mehlert, 1988).

Hopefully in the future geologists will devise newscientifically-based technologies to help distinguishwhich of the Haymond models is most credible—shal-low water geosynclines, deep water turbidity currents,short-headed stream deltas, or possibly other modelsthat have been or will be offered. Such an array ofviable origins theories illustrates the tentative andspeculative character of historical geology in general.An admonition to creation scientists might go as follows:“If a certain geological model seems not to fit withcatastrophist biblical concepts, wait a few years; thetheory will most likely change.”

While the ephemeral nature of geological originsschemes is familiar to specialists in that field, the read-ing public needs to be reminded periodically that anynew theory (or any old one, for that matter) whichpurports to account for rock genesis is always subjectto revision or abandonment. Furthermore, non-geolo-gists should know that if geological theories (which arebased on direct scientific observations and experiments)are at best uncertain, then the geologic “dates” appliedto the strata are even more speculative.

People will probably never deduce the Creator’spast geological activity with finality and assurance. Inall of the sciences, but especially in historical geology,workers ought to heed the words of Isaiah 55:8

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neitherare your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as theheaven is higher than the earth, so are my wayshigher than your ways, and my thoughts than yourthoughts.

AcknowledgmentsWe are grateful to the many people who have con-

tributed to the CRS Laboratory Fund, interest fromwhich has provided partial support for this project.Although we assume full responsibility for all state-ments in this paper, we thank Mr. Glen Morton, Dr.Wilbert Rusch, Sr., and Mr. Robert Gentet for readingan early version of the manuscript and suggesting valu-able improvements. We appreciate the assistance ofMs. Beth Howe in library work attendant to this paperand we thank Mrs. Phyllis Hughes for assistance inpreparing the manuscript.


ReferencesCRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly.Allen, B. F. 1972. The geologic age of the Mississippi River. CRSQ

9:96-114.Bouma, A. H. 1962. Sedimentology of some flysch deposits. Elsevier.

Amsterdam.Dean. W. E.. Jr. and R. Y. Anderson. 1967. Correlation of turbidite

strata in the Pennsylvanian Haymond formation, Marathon region,Texas. Journal of Geology 75:59-75.

Dietz, R. S. 1970. Geosynclines, mountains, and continent-building,In Continents adrift, edited by J. Tuzo Wilson. W. H. Freeman.San Francisco.

Flores, R. M. 1969. Shallow-water facies of upper PennsylvanianHaymond formation in Marathon Basin, Texas. American Asso-ciation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 53:717-718.

1970. A recent model for Pennsylvanian deposition inthe Marathon Basin, west Texas. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology40:621-628.

1972. Delta front-delta plain facies of the Pennsyl-vanian Haymond formation, northeastern Marathon Basin, Texas.Geological Society of America Bulletin 83:3415-3424.

1974. Characteristics of the Pennsylvanian lower-middle Haymond delta-front sandstones, Marathon Basin, westTexas. Geological Society of America Bulletin 85:709-716.

1975. Short-headed stream delta: model for Pennsyl-vanian Haymond formation, West Texas. American Associationof Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 59:2288-2301.

1992. Private correspondence to G. Howe, June 25,1992. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Geological Survey 972.

Foster, R. J. 1971. Physical geology. Merrill. Columbus, OH.Hamblin, W. K. 1975. The Earth’s dynamic systems. Burgess. Min-

neapolis.Hodgson, J. H. 1964. Earthquakes and earth structure. Prentice-Hall.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Howard. K. 1992. Turbidites: a challenge to uniformitarianism. Crea-

tion in The Crossfire 1(8):1-2.Johnson, K. E. 1962. Paleocurrent study of the Tesnus formation,

Marathon Basin, Texas. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 32:781-792.

King, P. B. and R. E. King. 1929. Stratigraphy of Trans-Pecos Texas.American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 13:911-912.

1932. Large boulders in the Haymondformation of west Texas. Geological Society of America Bulletin43:148.

1937. Geology of the Marathon region,Texas. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 187.

1958. Problems of boulder beds of Hay-mond formation, Marathon Basin, Texas. American Associationof Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 42:1731-1735.

1975. Marathon revisited and Ouachitaand Appalachian orogenic belts. Arkansas Geological Commis-sion The Geology of The Ouachita Mountains 1:1-90.

and C. I. Migliorini. 1950. Turbidity currents as a causeof graded bedding. Journal of Geology 58:91-127.

and H. W. Menard. 1952. Turbidity currents, gradedand non-graded deposits. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology22:83-96.

1967. Emplacement of flysch-type sand beds. Elsevier,Amsterdam. Sedimentology 9:203-243.

Kummel, B. 1961. History of the Earth. W. H. Freeman. San Francisco.Longwell, C. R. and R. F. Flint. 1964. Introduction to physical

geology. John Wiley and Sons. New York.McBride, E. F. 1966. Sedimentary petrology and history of the

Haymond formation (Pennsylvanian), Marathon Basin, Texas.University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Report ofInvestigations 57:1-101.

. 1969. A guidebook to the stratigraphy, sedimentarystructures and origin of flysch and pre-flysch rocks of the Mara-thon Basin, Texas. Dallas Geological Society and American Asso-ciation of Petroleum Geologists.

1970. Flysch sedimentation in the Marathon region,Texas. The Geological Association of Canada Special Paper 7:67-83.

1973. Sedimentology of the Haymond, formation(Pennsylvanian flysch), Marathon Basin, Texas. Geological Societyof America Special Paper 73:204.

1982. Pre-Permian sedimentary history of the Mara-thon region. Geological Society of America. Abstracts of TheAnnual Meeting, New Orleans. p. 559.

Mehlert, A. W. 1988. Another look at the age and history of theMississippi River. CRSQ 25:121-123.

Miller, W. J. 1948. An introduction to physical geology. D. VanNostrand. New York.

Moore, W. 1989. Geology of Big Bend National Park. Big BendNatural History Association, Big Bend National Park, TX.

Ross, C. A. 1981. Pennsylvanian and early Permian history of theMarathon Basin, west Texas. Marathon-Marfa Region of WestTexas Symposium and Guidebook. Permian Basin Section Societyof Economic Paleontologists and Minerologists. pp. 135-144.

Roth, A. A. 1975. General science notes: turbidites. Origins 2:106-107.Scheidegger, A. E. 1961. Theoretical geomorphology. Springer-Verlag,

Berlin.Seeman, A. L. 1946. Physical geography. Prentice-Hall. New York.Shelton, J. S. 1966. Geology illustrated. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Strahler, A. N. 1977. Principles of physical geology. Harper and Row.

New York.Sullivan, W. 1974. Continents in motion: the new Earth debate.

McGraw-Hill. New York.Thronbury, W. D. 1969. Principles of geomorphology. John Wiley

and Sons. New York.Van Waterschoot Van Der Gracht, W. A. 1931. Permo-Carboniferous

orogeny in south-central United States. American Association ofPetroleum Geologists Bulletin 15:901-1057.

Whitcomb, J. C. and H. M. Morris. 1960. The Genesis Flood. Presby-terian and Reformed. Philadelphia.

INDEX TO VOLUME 30 OF THECREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

AAdapted or Preadapted: a Clinical Perspective, 7Advanced Placement Coordinator Questions Evolution,

20. . Alkaloids Offer Evidence of Creative Purpose and

Design/Sources and Applications of Botanical. . . ,132

. . Archaeopteryx?/How Bird-like Is . . . , 164Archaeopteryx Was A Bird, 16

BBergman, Jerry

Creation and Creation Myths, 205Ota Benga: The Story of The Pygmy on Display in a

zoo, 140

The History of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii homi-noidea, 27

The Problem of Extinction and Natural Selection, 93Briegleb, Bruce

On Stellar Structure and Stellar Evolution, 71

CCarbon Dioxide in The Antediluvian Atmosphere, 193Cerro Castellan, 119Chaos: Making a New Heresy, 197COBE Instrumentation and Its Engineering Limitations,

216. . Craters on Venus/Fresh Impact . . . , 163Creation and Creation Myths, 205. . CRSQ Volume 12/Reprinted, 21


. . CRSQ Volume 13/Reprinted . . . , 90



DDavidheiser, Bolton

The Eye, 164DeYoung, Don B.

Editor’s Comments, 6Editor’s Comments, 61Editor’s Comments, 120Editor’s Comments, 183Water Is More than a Drink, 18

. . Dinosaur Extinction/The Volcanic Hypotheses for. . . , 163

DuBois, Paul D.Creationist Evaluation of Australopithecus afarensis,

65

E. . Ear Muscles/Functional External . . . , 90Editor’s Comments, 6Editor’s Comments, 61Editor’s Comments, 126Editorial Comments, 65Evolutionism: an Oxymoron, 12. . Extinction and Natural Selection/The Problem of

. . . , 93. . Eye/The . . . , 164

FFaulkner, Danny R.

The Role of Stellar Population Types in The Discus-sion of Stellar Evolution, 8

. . Flood Geology Model—Part I/An Evaluation of TheJohn Woodmorappe . . . ,77

. . Flood Geology Model—Part II/An Evaluation ofThe John Woodmorappe . . . , 149

Fossil Wood of Big Bend National Park, Brewster Coun-ty, Texas: Part I—Geologic Setting, 47

Fossil Wood from Big Bend National Park, BrewsterCounty, Texas: Part II—Mechanism of Silicificationof Wood and Other Pertinent Factors, 106

Fossil Wood of Big Bend National Park, Brewster Coun-ty, Texas: Part III—Chemical Tests Performed onWood. 169

Frair, WayneAdditional Information on the Freiberg Human Skull

Composed of Coal, 36

G. . Glacial Chronology and Biostratigraphy in a Muddle/

Antarctic . . . , 89. . Grand Canyon/Comments on The Breached Dam

Theory for the Formation of The . . . , 39. . Graptolite Found?/A Living . . . , 165

HHerrmann, Robert A.

The Scientific Existence of A Higher Intelligence,218

. . Hesperopithecus haroldcookii hominoidea/The His-tory of . . . , 27

. . Higher Intelligence/The Scientific Evidence of. . . ,218

Hoffman, E. J.Evolutionism: an Oxymoron, 12

Howe, George F.Fossil Wood of Big Bend National Park, Brewster

County, Texas: Part I—Geologic Setting, 47Fossil Wood of Big Bend National Park, Brewster

County, Texas: Part III—Chemical Tests Performedon Wood, 169

Humber, Paul G.Advanced Placement Coordinator Questions Evolu-

tion, 20

IIndex to Volume 29 of the Creation Research Society

Quarterly, 24

JJohnson, Phillip, E.

Science without God, 162

KKaplan, John

Antarctic Glacial Chronology and Biostratigraphy ina Muddle, 89

Functional External Ear Muscles, 90How Bird-like is Archaeopteryx?, 165

Kaufmann, David A.Minutes of 1992 Creation Research Society Board of

Directors Meeting, 23Minutes of 1993 Creation Research Society Board of

Directors Meeting, 168Keyword Index to Volume 29, 160

LLumsden, Richard D.

Sources and Application of Botanical Alkaloids OfferEvidence of Creative Purpose and Design, 132

MMatzko, George T.

Fossil Wood of Big Bend National Park, BrewsterCounty, Texas: Part III—Chemical Tests Performedon Wood, 169

Medicine Is Not so Modern/Modern . . . , 18Mehlert, A. W.

An Evaluation of The John Woodmorappe FloodGeology Model—Part I, 77

An Evaluation of The John Woodmorappe FloodGeology Model—Part Two, 149

Minutes of 1992 Creation Research Society Board ofDirectors Meeting, 23

Minutes of 1993 Creation Research Society Board ofDirectors Meeting, 168

. . “Mudcracks”/Underwater . . . , 213

OOard, Michael J.

A Living Graptolite Found? 165Antarctic Glacial Chronology and Biostratigraphy in

a Muddle, 89Archaeopteryx Was A Bird, 16Comments on The Breached Dam Theory for The

Formation of The Grand Canyon, 39Fresh Impact Craters on Venus, 163The Volcanic Hypothesis for Dinosaur Extinction,

163Underwater “Mudcracks,” 213


P. . Pygmy on Display in a Zoo/Ota Benga: The Story of

The . . . , 140

RRemarks by The President, 65. . Rocky Mountains/Catastrophism—Dam Breaching

in The . . . , 86

SScience without God, 162. . Scientific Creationism/The Social Context of . . . ,

by Jerry Bergman, 226Skull Composed of Coal/Additional Information on

the Freiberg Human . . . , 36Smith, Stan G.

Chaos: Making a New Heresy, 197Stark, William G.


. . Stellar Population Types in The Discussion of StellarEvolution/The Role of . . . , 8

. . Stellar Structure and Stellar Evolution/On . . . , 71

TTaylor, Bruce J.

Carbon Dioxide in The Antediluvian Atmosphere,193

VVonTheumer, Alfred E.

COBE Instrumentation and Its Engineering Limita-tions, 216

Vorphal, P. V.Adapted or Preadapted: a Clinical Perspective, 7

WWater Is More Than a Drink, 18. . Wax as Protection from Arid Conditions/A Plant

That Produces . . . , 17White, Richard R.


Williams, Emmett L.A Plant that Produces Wax as Protection from Arid

Conditions, 17Catastrophism—Dam Breaching in The Rocky Moun-

tains, 86Cerro Castellan, 119Fossil Wood of Big Bend National Park, Brewster

County, Texas: Part I—Geologic Setting, 47Fossil Wood from Big Bend National Park, Brewster

County, Texas: Part II—Mechanism of Silicificationof Wood and Other Pertinent Factors, 106

Fossil Wood of Big Bend National Park, BrewsterCounty, Texas: Part III—Chemical Test Performedon Wood, 169

Reprinted CRSQ Volume 12, 21Reprinted CRSQ Volume 13, 90Reprinted CRSQ Volume 14, 166Reprinted CRSQ Volume 15, 214

Wise, David A.Modern Medicine Is Not So Modern, 18

Wolfrom, Glenn W.A Plant that Produces Wax as Protection from Arid

Conditions, 17Keyword Index to Volume 29, 166

Book or Article ReviewsBones of Contention—A Creationist Assessment of

Human Fossils, by Michael J. Oard, 222Creationists/The . . . , by David J. Rodabaugh, 112Hydrothermal-Vent Communities of The Deep Sea,

by Jacqueline S. Lee, 35In The Minds of Men, by Clifford L. Lillo, 177Michael Faraday—Sandemanian and Scientist, by Don

B. DeYoung, 177. . Origin and Evolution of Life on Earth/The . . . , by

Clifford L. Lillo 224. . Scientific Creationism/The Social Context of . . . ,

by Jerry Bergman, 226. . Theologian Looks at Science/From Beyond The

Laboratory: A . . . , by Don B. DeYoung, 34

Letters to the Editor. . C-14 Review/Critique of a . . . , by R. H. Brown,

124Carbon-14, by David Tyler, 123CATASTOREF, by Steven A. Austin, 64Cell Biology or “Cellular Intelligence”? A Reply to Dr.

McCann’s Rejoinder, by Richard D. Lumsden, PaulC. Anders, Jeffrey R. Pettera, and Gaynell M.Lumsden, 64

COBE Update, by Paul Gamer, 123Creation Conference, by Robert E. Walsh, 186Creation Vacations, by David and Mary Jo Nutting,

1 8 6Dinosaur Name, by Clifford Lillo, 62. . Flood Geology/Studies in Creationism and . . , by

John Woodmorappe, 69Fossil Wood of Big Bend National Park, by Carol R.

Froede, Jr., 189Hydrothermal Vents, by Jackie Lee, 187Isotope Corrections, by Harold Heinze, 131. . Isotope Corrections/A Response on . . , by Gerald

E. Aardsma, 128Logic, by Ross S. Olson, M.D., 192Moondust Argument and Carving, by Carl Wieland,

M.D., 192Neanderthal Man, by Marvin Lubenow, 124Oxymoron, by Dan Watts, 189Oxymoron and Tautology, by Jeffrey M. Groah, 191. . Oxymoron/Author’s Reply on. . . , by E. J. Hoffman,

189Reply to Montgomery, by Eugene F. Chaffin, 63Relativity, by Robert A. Herrmann, 186Reply by McCann, by Lester J. McCann, 68Speed of Light, by Alan Montgomery, 63. . Speed of Light/The, by Bolton Davidheiser, 62. . Toes and Creation Science/A Reply: Horse . . . , by

George F. Howe. 126. . Toes in Horses/Genetics of Extra . . . , by John

Kaplan, 125Tree of Life, by Harry Akers, Jr, 62. . Tree Rings—Author’s Reply on . . . , by Gerald E.

Aardsma, 128Tree Rings Again, by Warren H. Johns, 129Ultrauniform, by Robert A. Herrmann, 127Whitelaw’s Reply, by Robert L. Whitelaw, 123


PANORAMA NOTE

Carlsbad “Signs Off”Caves and cave deposits (speleothems) such as sta-

lactites have long been of interest to creationists becauseof the implied long ages for such structures at populartourist sites. In particular, it has been tempting forsome to estimate the ages of stalactites by assumingconstant rates of accretion over vast periods of time.However, such attempts at dating are known, even byuniformitarians, to be invalid because of the frequentlydocumented cases of nonuniform conditions (Lange,1975; Nicholas, 1993). Nonetheless, the myth persists.The length of time for formation of the caves them-selves is equally elusive. For example, a catastrophicstorm can produce more work within a cave than cancenturies of uniformitarian erosion (Doehring andVierbuchen, 1971). These and related matters havebeen discussed in earlier volumes of CRSQ (Williams,1987; 1992). Reference to other creationist works canbe found in these citations.

A remarkable illustration of the folly associated withsuch age determinations is evinced in an article re-cently published in Arizona Highways (Taylor, 1993).Jerry Trout, a geologist and an employee of the U.S.Forest Service who has spent a significant portion ofhis life studying cave formations, is quoted as follows:

From 1924 to 1988, there was a visitor’s sign abovethe entrance to Carlsbad Caverns that said Carls-bad was at least 260 million years old. In 1988, thesign was changed to read 7 to 10 million years old.Then, for a little while, the sign read that it was 2million years old. Now the sign is gone.

BOOK R

Mr. Trout confirmed in a telephone conversationthat he was accurately quoted. He also indicated to methat the maximum rate of stalactite growth he hasobserved is seven inches in 10 days, and that growthrates of several inches a month are common. Condi-tions must of course be just right for the rapid growthof stalactites (e.g., a plentiful supply of groundwater;see Williams, House, and Herdklotz, 1981), but thepoint is that long periods of time are not required. It islikely that such conditions were common during thepost-Flood period.

ReferencesCRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly.Doehring, D. O. and R. C. Vierbuchen. 1971. Cave development

during a catastrophic storm in the Great Valley of Virginia.Science 174:1327-1329.

Lange, A. L. 1975. Caves and cave systems. In: Encyclopaedia Britan-nica, 15th Edition. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago.30:1028.

Nicholas, B. G. 1993. Stalactites and stalagmites. In: The AcademicAmerican Encyclopedia, On-line Edition. Grolier Electronic Pub-lishing, Danbury, CT.

Taylor, M. 1993. Descent. Arizona Highways 69(1):9Williams, E. L. 1987. Rapid development of calcium carbonate

(CaCO3) formations. CRSQ 24:18-19.

Williams, E. L. 1992. Cavern and speleothem formation—scienceand philosophy. CRSQ 29:83-84.

Williams, E. L., K. W. House, and R. J. Herdklotz. 1981. Solution anddeposition of calcium carbonate in a laboratory situation IV.CRSQ 17:205-208.

Glen W. Wolfrom**Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D., is Membership Secretary of CRS.

EVIEW
Remember Thy Creator by G. Richard Culp. 1990.
Historic Christian Publications East, P.O. 1187, Mid-dlebury, IN 46565. 207 pages. $8.00.

Reviewed by Don DeYoung*Richard Culp practices osteopathic medicine in an

Amish-Mennonite region of Northern Indiana. He holdsseveral graduate degrees; the book relates many of hisgraduate school experiences. Dr. Culp became first acreationist and then a Christian during universitystudies. The book was initially written in 1975, and thisis a 1990 revision. Parts are somewhat dated—the mostrecent reference is 1981. Still, much of the material isuniquely written and of continuing value.

The book is a good survey of the entire creation-evolution issue. For example, there is helpful discus-sion of ape-men, vestigial organs, and pleochroic halos.Dr. Culp’s medical background shows in several areas:five excellent pages are dedicated to design in thehuman eye (pp. 34-38). It is explained that sore backsdo not result from our rising up from an ancient four-footed ancestry. “Actually, the lower animals are sub-

ject to the same ills” (p. 62). Regarding vestigial organs,the functions of the tonsils, appendix, and the thymusare discussed (pp. 63-66).

Dr. Culp has a special interest in botany, and also thegeographical distribution of plants and animals (Culp,1988). (The Culp residence itself has become a placeof research, with several highly unusual plantings.)The book gives the 224 year-old testimony of Ameri-can botanist John Bartram. The words were chiseled ina Philadelphia windowsill by Bartram himself (p. 165):

It is God alone almyty LordThe holy one by me adored.

There is another strong testimony in the book, that ofRichard Culp. He presents creation data and also thegospel in a most refreshing manner.

ReferenceCulp, G. Richard. 1988. The geographical distribution of animals

and plants. Creation Research Society Quarterly 25:24-27.

*Don DeYoung, Grace College, 200 Seminary Drive, Winona Lake,IN 46590.


ANATOMICAL EVIDENCE FOR CREATION: DESIGN IN THE HUMAN BODYDAVID A. KAUFMANN*

Received 14 July 1993; Revised 1 October 1993

AbstractThe human body is designed for precise, efficient functioning. In our human realm, creative inventors and

engineers design and develop simple and complex machines that perform work more efficiently. A review ofexamples of pulley systems, wheels and axles, friction-reducing sacs within joints and compression/tension abilitiesof bones in the human body is presented. The functional superiority of the human brain over lower animals is cited.Since designs infer a designer, an unbiased observer would have great difficulty denying the rationality of inferringthat these highly designed mechanisms in the human body had to be designed by an outside, suprahumanintelligent agent (Logos), the Creator.

IntroductionIn the real world a design logically infers a designer.

The human body abounds with such intricate designs.The pulley is one of man’s most work-saving machines;13 examples of pulleys in the human body which aregrouped into five classes will be discussed. The func-tioning of the shoulder girdle, ribs and vertebral columnand pelvic girdle as a wheel and axle system is alsopresented. The purposeful function of friction reduc-tion by bursae in the human joints is reviewed, alongwith an explanation of how bones are designed toresist tension and compression. Finally, the creativesuperiority of the human brain over animal brains isdiscussed. To the reasonable person, it is logical toconclude that these complex, efficient, purposefulmechanisms in the human body did not evolve byconsecutive random accidents of unthinking moleculesreacting together but are the result of the plannedthinking and workmanship of a Divine Designer.

When one of my anatomy students who has justcomprehended one of the intricate designs in the humanbody asks me “How did this happen to evolve?” Myusual reply is “All intricate designs in the human bodycannot be explained by gradual mutations over vastperiods of time. God must have gotten into the act.”Since in the real world, the existence of a watch de-mands the mind and effort of a watchmaker, likewisethe existence of an intricate design in the human bodydemands the existence of the mind and effort of abrilliant Designer. Complex designs do not originateby random raw material accidentally meeting a randomenergy system over an everlasting period of time. Toput it in collegiate slang, “How can nobody makeeverything?” There must be a Grand Designer behindevery grand design.

I compare this argument to the field of automotiveproduction. Some autos are better than others becauseof better design and quality workmanship. There hasto be a “thinking force” behind every designed part.Automobiles are not made by unthinking randomness.Holroyd (1975, p. 95) has stated it succinctly, “Whenchanges are made in good designs by accidents, it ispractically certain that the designs will be damaged ordestroyed.”

At one time as an immature student of science, I hadgreat admiration for man-controlled secular science.But after more than 25 years of scientific experience, I*David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D., Dept. of Exercise and Sport Sciences,Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2034.

Figure 1. Simple pulley.

realize how weak and limited man-devised science is.It is very easy to distinguish between man-made andGod-made designs. The more you magnify man-madedesigns, the cruder they appear; but the more youmagnify God-made designs the more complex andprecise they appear. One of the giants of science hassaid it clearly:

It is not to be conceived that mere mechanicalcauses could give birth to so many regular motions. . . this most beautiful system of the sun, planetsand comets, could only proceed from the counciland dominion of an intelligent and powerful being(Newton, 1952, p. 369).

Pulleys in the Human BodyEarlier (1974, pp. 91-94) I cited some examples of

mechanical designs in the human body. In this article Iwould like to cite some further examples of well-de-signed pulley systems in the human body that obviouslyinfer the planned thinking and workmanship of a DivineDesigner. A pulley can be defined as a wheel, some-times turning in a block, with a grooved rim in which arope or chain runs that can raise or lower a weightattached at one end by pulling on the other end. It is


one of the simple machines of mechanics, a subdisci-pline of physics. Other simple machines are the lever,the inclined plane, the wheel and axle, the gear, thewedge, and the screw. From these simple machinesmost more complex machines can be devised and built.In general, these simple machines either give a resis-tance force a higher velocity at the expense of an effortforce or gain magnitude of effort force at the sacrificeof magnitude of velocity.

Figure 2. Double pulley.

There are two basic types of pulley systems. First isthe “block and tackle” system which has both fixedand moveable pulleys. In this system, greater magni-tude of force is gained at the expense of applying alesser magnitude of force over a greater distance.Second, pulleys are used to change the direction of anapplied force. Figures 1 and 2 depict two basic typesof pulleys devised by “intelligent” man. There are anumber of bone-joint structures in the human bodywhich simulate the pulley action of changing the direc-tion of an applied force. In most cases a rounded bonypart acts as the pulley wheel, the tendon acts as thecord, the muscular contraction supplies the effort forceand the weight of the bone (limb) located at its centerof gravity acts as the resistance force.

An anatomical pulley has two mechanical purposes.Some pulleys will completely change the action of ajoint. Other pulleys will alter the angle of muscularinsertion giving the muscle a mechanical advantage.Figures 3 and 4 demonstrate the difference between amuscle with a small angle of insertion and a musclewith a large angle of insertion.

Classification of PulleysColeman (1978, pp. 63-73) has grouped pulleys into

five classes. These classifications with examples in thehuman body are clear signs of simple mechanical de-vices that had to be designed by a Divine Designer.

Figure 3. Muscle with small angle of insertion.

Figure 4. Muscle with large angle of insertion.

Class I PulleysIn this class an improved joint action results from the

muscle tendon passing over an external structure whichserves as the pulley wheel.

Example 1: The knee joint is the most obvious exam-ple (Figure 5). In reality, the patella is not necessary forthe quadriceps muscle group to extend the tibia bone.But the patella is necessary to change the angle ofinsertion of the patellar ligament (which is an extensionof the quadriceps tendon) into the tuberosity on thetibia. This hemispheric bone increases the angle ofinsertion of the patellar ligament which increases thetrigonometric sine relationship which increases themagnitude of the applied force on the tibia.

Figure 5. Patella acting as pulley at knee joint.

Example 2: At the hip joint the psoas major musclepasses over the brim of the lesser pelvis (Figure 6). Asa person lies on his back, both the origin on the lumbarvertebrae and the insertion on the lesser trochanter ofthe femur are posterior to the brim of the lesser pelvis.


The elevated brim of the lesser pelvis increases boththe angle of origin and angle of insertion of the psoasmajor. If the trunk is flexed on the femur or femurflexed on the trunk, both movements have a greatermagnitude of applied force because of this increase inangular pull. This pulley device at the hip joint causestwo major kinesiological results. First, if the brim ofthe lesser pelvis did not improve the angle of pull ofthe psoas major, this muscle could not be a major hipflexor. Second, the psoas major would not be the mainmuscular culprit in promoting the prevalent posturaldisorder lordosis (hollow back).

Figure 6. Brim of lesser pelvis acting as pulley for psoas majormuscle at hip joint.

Figure 7. Lateral malleolus and cuboid acting as double pulleys forperoneus longus muscle about ankle joint.

Class II PulleysIn this class the action of the muscle at the joint is

altered because of the pulley.Example 1: Figure 7 depicts the tendon of the

peroneus longus muscle proceeding down the lateralcalf behind the first pulley, the lateral malleolus of thefibula, curving forward and under the foot, passingalong the groove in the second pulley, the cuboid bone,and finally inserting on the lateral side of the medial(first) cuneiform bone. The first pulley causes theapplied force to plantar flex the ankle (extending thefoot as in pointing the toes), and the second pulley

causes the applied force to evert the ankle (as movingthe lateral border of the foot away from the midline ofthe body in a frontal plane). Without these pulleys thismuscle would insert in front of the ankle and on top ofthe foot, and its action would be limited to only dorsi-flexion at the ankle joint (moving the instep toward thetibia in a sagittal plane).

Example 2: Figure 8 depicts the action of the superioroblique muscle of the eye. The tendon of this musclepasses over a small cartilagineous bridge called thetrochlea (Latin for pulley). This change in angle of pullcauses this muscle to rotate the eyeball either clockwise(right eye) or counterclockwise (left eye).

Example 3: Figure 9 depicts the omohyoid musclepulling on the hyoid bone, a horseshoe shaped bone inthe anterior neck. The pulley is a ligamentous slingwhich directs the applied force downward rather thanbackward.

Figure 8. Cartilagenous trochlea acting as pulley for superior obliquemuscle of eye.

Figure 9. Ligamentous sling acting as pulley for omohyoideus whichpulls downward on hyoid bone on anterior neck.

Class III PulleysIn this class the joint framework serves as the pulley.Example 1: Figure 10 depicts the flexor digitorum

profundus passing over the knuckles of the distal inter-phalangeal joint. Similarly, the tendon of the gracilismuscle on the medial thigh gains a favorable anglebecause of the size of the medial epicondyles of thefemur (Figure 11).


Figure 10. Distal interphalangel joint acting as pulley for flexordigitorum profundus on anterior fingers.

Figure 11. Epicondyle of femur acting as pulley for gracilis tendonwhich pulls on tibia.

Figure 12. Metacarpophalangeal joint acting as pulley for Palmerinterossei muscles on anterior fingers.

Example 2: Figure 12 depicts the tendons of thepalmar interossei muscles as they pass over the meta-carpophalangeal joints. The heads of the metacarpalsalter the angle of pull of these muscles causing theapplied force to adduct the fingers (pull fingers II, IV,and V toward finger III in the frontal plane).

Example 3: Figure 13 depicts the belly of the middledeltoid muscle as it passes over the shoulder joint. Thehead of the humerus causes an improved angle of

Figure 13. Shoulder joint acting as pulley for middle deltoid muscle.

Figure 14. Head of radius acting as pulley for supinator muscle as itpulls on radius.

Figure 15. Increased size of brachialis and biceps brachium actingas pulley for biceps brachium.

insertion on the deltoid tuberosity of the humerus re-sulting in abduction of the shoulder joint (lifting theupper arm away from the midline of the body in afrontal plane).Class IV Pulleys

In this class the muscle wraps around the pulleycausing the pulley to rotate. Figure 14 depicts thesupinator muscle wrapping around the head of theradius. In this example the pulley action is not to gain amore favorable mechanical advantage, but to causethe pulley to rotate. Mechanical advantage can only beincreased here by having a bone with a larger crosssectional area (radius).Class V Pulleys

In this case the muscle acts as its own pulley. Figure15 depicts the biceps brachium muscle with the elbowextended. As this muscle increases in size, it not onlybecomes stronger but the angle of insertion increasesslightly. Added to this is the probability that when thebrachialis, which is a bulky muscle underneath thebiceps brachium, is increased in size and strength, thisalso will elevate the biceps brachium slightly.


SummaryFive classes of pulleys which increase the mechanical

actions at certain joints have been discussed. Is it notreasonable to conclude that these advanced, complexdevices did not develop by random accidents by un-thinking molecules, but are the result of the plannedthinking and workmanship of a Divine Designer?

Wheel and Axles in the Human BodyMany of us depend on our automobiles daily. We

would never arrive at our destinations if it was not forthe wheels and axles functioning in our cars. The“designing” of various wheels and axles provides uswith an enormous mechanical advantage in performingphysical work.

In the human body there are also examples of thebones functioning as wheels and axles. The followingis one bodily example:

1. The shoulder girdle (top wheel). This oblongring of bones consists of:A. the two scapulae (shoulder blades)B. the two clavicles (collar bones)C. the manubrium of the sternum (breastbone)

2. The rib cage. This consists of 12 pairs of ribswhich are attached to the sternum in front andthe vertebral column in back.

3. The vertebral column (axle). This is a row of 26bones which attaches the skull to the pelvic girdle.

4. The pelvic girdle (bottom wheel). This consistsof two hip bones and the sacrum bone of thevertebral column.

5. The muscles that attach to the shoulder girdle,vertebral column or rib cage and pelvic girdle(pulling force).

Figure 16 depicts the shoulder girdle, vertebral col-umn and pelvic girdle acting as a wheel and axle.

The shoulder girdle with its accompanying rib cageacts as the top wheel. The vertebral column acts as theaxle. The pelvic girdle acts as the bottom wheel. Intrunk twisting exercises, the oblique abdominal musclespull on the trunk as though it were the rim of a wheel,and the trunk rotates in the direction of the pull. Thispermits various pivots and twists to be performed bydancers, gymnasts, divers and workers. The wheel andaxle system in the human body is even more versatilethan the wheel and axle in our automobiles, for thewheels in the human body can twist in opposite direc-tions at the same time.

This is just one of the examples of the bony structuresacting as a wheel and axle in the body. Actually, allrotation movements around joints with two exceptions(protraction and retraction of the shoulder girdle) arewheel and axle movements. Movements like forearmpronation in badminton and medial rotation of theshoulder joint in throwing are sport-related activitiesutilizing a wheel and axle mechanism. Use of the wheeland axle arrangement by body structures is a greatadvantage in producing speedy segmental movementfor all throwing and striking activities. These examplesof wheel-axle mechanical advantages of human move-

Figure 16. Shoulder girdle, vertebral column and pelvic girdle actingas wheel and axle.

ment are indications of planned design and purposefulfunction by a Designer rather than the unplanned,random reactions of unthinking physiochemical forcesover alleged vast periods of time.

Reducing Friction in the BodyYou might remember a television commercial by

Shell Oil Company in which their representative tellshow their engineers have developed discs of lubrica-tion that are placed between the body and chassis ofgiant railroad freight cars. As the joints are pressedtogether, the lubrication squirts out and decreases thefriction of the joint system. The Divine Designer hasdevised this same principle in certain joints of thehuman body. Tiny sacs containing synovial fluid aresituated in certain joints to perform the same functionof the lubricating discs of the Shell Oil Company.These discs are called bursae, and if anyone has everhad bursitis, they know how important these discsare. These bursae are situated where ligaments, mus-cles, skin, tendons or bones overlie each other andrub together. They perform the exact same functionof the Shell lubricating discs of railroad cars, i.e.,reduce the friction from rubbing.

It is logical to conclude since some brilliant engineerdevised and made functional these lubricating discsthat reduce friction in giant railroad freight cars, thatsome Supreme Being Engineer devised and made func-tional the lubricating bursae that reduce friction in thejoints of humans. If the lubricating discs in man cameabout by chance factors over a long period of time,why did not the Shell Oil Company just wait for thesame thing to happen in lubricating the chassis ofrailroad freight cars instead of hiring an analytical andcreative human engineer to design the system? Theycould have saved considerable money if this werepossible. Of course, it is impossible, and this is why thecreation model is best for explaining both the complexfunctional apparatus in both railroad freight cars andthe human joint system.


Tension and Compression in Bone TissueWhen an engineer designs a structure to withstand

disrupting and crushing forces, he devises the structureto include stays which resist tensile forces and struts toresist compression forces. Human bone is so constructedthat it can resist both tensile forces and compressionforces. Its marrow cavity, endosteum and compactbone system provide for resistance to tensile forceswhile its periosteum with its outer fibrous layer andinner osteogenic layer provides resistance to compres-sion forces. Hence, bone shows considerable structuraladvantages over many constructional materials, suchas cast and wrought iron and wood, which are strongin resisting tensile forces but weak in resisting com-pression forces. Bell (1941, pp. 298-317) has shown thetensile strength of bone by experimental studies on ratsto be 35,000 lb/in2 in average breaking stress to bendingas compared to 40,000 lb/in2 for cast iron. Bone has anadvantage over cast iron, because it is three timeslighter and much more flexible. Clark (1971, p. 102)has claimed that bone material is three times as strongas timber and half as strong as mild steel. In comparingbone to other materials, Shipman et al. (1985, p. 53)reported that “porcelain and other ceramics have tensilestrengths ranging from about one-third to one-half thatof bone.” In light of these facts, a person must askhimself, “If a civil engineer designed the superior struc-tures of steel beams and the like, did not some Super-human Engineer design the superior material and struc-ture of our human bone system?” Also, the mineral andprotein components of bone tissue, taken separately,are both weaker (both in compression and tension)than the actual combination of these components. Howcould a slow process of evolution lead to this combina-tion? How would animals survive maximal stresses ontheir bones over billions of years of a snail’s pacedevelopment of compression and tension?

The Creative Superiority of the Human BrainAnimal brains and human brains have many structural

and functional similarities. However, there are somelarge, significant differences. First, the human brainhas a larger and better developed frontal lobe—ap-proximately one-half of the volume of the cerebralcortex consists of the frontal lobe. The frontal lobe inhumans regulates muscular and mental functions. There-fore, it can be divided into motor, pre-motor and pre-frontal areas which are immediately behind the fore-head and eye sockets. It is this latter pre-frontal areathat give humans mental superiority over lower animals.The pre-frontal cortex barely exists in rats and mice; incats and dogs it makes up 3.5 and 7 percent of thecerebral cortex respectively. The pre-frontal cortex ofchimpanzees consists of 17 percent of their cerebralcortex. In humans the pre-frontal cortex consists of a“whopping” 29 percent—almost one-third of the entirecerebral cortex. It is this expanded, well-developedpre-frontal area that makes humans superior to otheranimals in memory functions, planning controls, feed-back and inhibitory controls on behavior.

Second, the human brain has a significant enlarge-ment and development of areas known as the associa-tion cortex. It is these areas located within the cerebralcortex that allow humans to connect the experiences oflife into a meaningful whole and relate them to self for

a greater perception of the world and personal aware-ness. Sensations and memory are integrated and soonconnect reason, language and ideas into meaningfulexperiences.

Third, the human brain has a unique area (Broca’sarea) designed to produce and perceive speech. Aspeech area has never been discovered in any animal,and, indeed, no animal possesses the language andcommunication abilities of humans.

Evidence of the evolutionary development of lowlydeveloped animal brains into highly developed humanbrains is non-existent. The vast jump of developmentfrom non-human primate brains to the complex frontallobes, highly specialized association areas and uniquespeech areas of the human brain is so great that itdefies any comprehension of evolutionary logic.

Cosgrove (1987, p. 164), a professor and chairmanof psychology at Taylor University, has summarizedthe situation as follows:

Without the evidence of gradual approximationsof the human speech center in the animal world,the development of human speech from the ani-mals is a mystery to biologists. Though weak, thebest explanations are that gestures were replacedby single sounds or that men began to imitatesounds in their natural environments. The com-plexity of all human languages (past and present),the neurological complexity required to producegrammatical knowledge in the child, and the com-plexity of neurological control over auditory andmusculature systems required for speech makethese explanations appear absurd. If we are honest,we will face the facts and admit that we can findno evolutionary development to explain our uniquespeech center.

Common Sense and ScriptureIf a precise-working automobile presupposes an

automaker, surely the infinitely more complex and in-tricate structures of the human body infer a bodymaker. The psalmist says: “Understand, ye brutishamong people and ye fools, when will ye be wise? Hethat planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formedthe eye, shall He not see” (Psalm 94:8, 9)? Here Scrip-ture infers that the eyes and ears were planned andcreated to provide accurate sensory function for ushumans. It also infers that the evolutionary concept ofundirected, random particles evolving into organizedstructures is humanistic foolishness (brutish, unwise).Solomon, the wisest king, stated, “The hearing ear, andthe seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them”(Proverbs 20:12).

The most basic of all scientific laws—the law ofcause and effect (no effect can be greater than itscause)—becomes foolishness to those who believe thatmatter can organize itself into highly functional livingstructures by chaotic chance factors.

Every organism, from the single-celled microbe tothe amazing human body carries the imprint of intricateplanning and construction. The idea that such complexstructures did evolve by random mutations and naturalselection is clearly a measure of the arrogance of humanrebellion against common sense and the absurdity ofhumanistic logic. Such things never happen in the realworld, and there is little or no real scientific evidence


whatever for “upward” evolution from one kind oflower organism to a higher organism. The only genuineforce for the belief in evolution is the fact that theintellectual leaders want to believe it. The main reasonthey believe it is their fanatic desire to escape the ideathat there is a Creator Who is more intellectual thanthey. “Professing themselves to be wise, they becamefools” (Romans 1:22).

The ear did not accidently “evolve” into its design; itwas designed by a Master Architect. The eye did not“occur” by chance: it was planned by a Master Planner.Common sense and Scripture both point to the de-velopment of living organized structures by creativeacts of a Superhuman Intelligence.

Anatomy and ScriptureThere are over 100 references to the word “body” in

the Bible, but most of these references are not in ananatomical sense and hence will not be noted. However,there are two significant anatomical references in theScriptures.

We observe that the human body demonstrates anorganized plan of symmetry with a certain degree ofvariation from symmetry. When my students stumbleacross some violation of symmetry, for instance theazygos vein, which is an unpaired vein on the right sideof the thorax, and ask why there is only a miniaturehemiazygous vein on the left side of the thorax mytypical reply is “That’s the way God made it.” If welook at I Corinthians 12:18, we learn “As it is, however,God put every different part in the body just as Hewished? Here the Creator tells us that He designed thestructures of our bodies and placed them into an or-ganized plan with a certain degree of variation for hisown purposes. We humans do not know why he decidedto place a large azygos vein on the right side and only aminiature hemiazygos vein on the left side. But we doknow that he planned our bodies for His own individualreasons. He did not allow it to develop by chancefactors as evolutionary theory maintains. The answer Igive my students not only answers their question withsome satisfaction, but it is scripturally correct. Thestudents realize that there are some academic questionsthat the best scholars do not know, and we realize thatour bodies were created or conserved this way becauseour Divine Designer just decided to do it this way.Science has very real limitations, and once we realizethis, our emotional and spiritual lives receive a certaindegree of enrichment.

Another specific reference to anatomy in Scriptureis Colossians 2:19b, “Under Christ’s control the wholebody is nourished and held together by its joints andligaments, and grows as God wants it to grow.” Herewe are told that the power of Christ has set up theprinciples of nutrition and growth. The structure andfunction of the joints and ligaments were made to suitGod’s purpose, and were not due to some chancehappening. Here again supernatural design is clearlyemphasized. The earlier context (Colossians 2:16-19a)claims that making strict rules about eating, drinking,and holy days are not in accord with God’s purposeand should be avoided by the Christian. However, theCreator has given us, the Body of Christ, certain rulesof nutrition and growth to live by, and we are not toviolate them. . .

Argument for a DesignerIt is ironic that the purpose of most scientific ex-perimentation is to determine the mechanism or causeof some phenomenon, but when it comes to the originof life and the universe most scientists abandon theprinciple of causality and adhere to the principle ofrandomness. Should natural phenomena be causeless,an infinite number of causes is an absurdity. Unlesswe abandon the principle of causality completely, weare driven to recognize an Infinite First Cause, theTriune God.

In all realms of science there is a recognition oflaws and principles. In our human sphere, all civillaws are made by some lawmaker. Is it not logical toconclude that since persons and minds make civillaws here on earth, the existence of natural lawsimplies a Supernatural Lawgiver? How can a lawmake itself?

In essence, the argument for evolution is based onrandom physiochemical forces acting over immenseperiods of time; the argument for Creation is basedon planned, purposeful design by a Divine Designer.In studying the human body anatomically one isimpressed with its high degree of design. The greatestdigital computers developed by our superior scientificminds are simple machines when compared to thevery complex human nervous system.

SummaryAnatomy, the study of the structure of the body is a

dynamic academic discipline. In the mechanical areaof the world, thinking, creative human engineers de-sign and develop newer, better forms of simple ma-chines that perform work more efficiently. Humananatomists have discovered in the body examples ofpulleys, wheels and axles, friction reducing fluid filledsacs within joints, compression and tension abilities ofbone, and the creative superiority of the human brain.The question is, “Could undirected, randomized en-ergy (chaos) through physio-chemical laws designand develop these precise functioning examples ofsimple machines in the human body? An unbiasedobserver would have great difficulty denying therationality of inferring that these highly designedmechanisms were designed by an outside intelligentagent (Logos) which we would call the Creator of theuniverse. There certainly is anatomical evidence forthe creation model of origins.

ReferencesCRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly.Bell, G. H., D. P. Cuthbertson and J. Orr. 1941. Strength and size of

bone in relation to calcium intake. Journal of Physiology (Lon-don) 100:298-317.

Clark, W. E. L. 1971. The tissues of the body. Clarendon Press.Oxford.

Coleman, J. 1978. The function of anatomical pulleys. Proceedingsof Kinesiology: A national conference on teaching. Edited by C.Dillman and R. Sears. University of Illinois. Urbana.

Cosgrove, M. P. 1987. The amazing body human. Baker BookHouse. Grand Rapids.

Holroyd, H. B. 1975. Arguments against symmetry and design fromchance events. CRSQ 12:95.

Kaufmann, D. A. 1974. Design in the human body. CRSQ 11:91-94.Newton, I. 1952. Mathematical principles of natural philosophy:

Optics. In Great books of the Western World. Volume 34.William Benton. Chicago.

Shipman, P., A. Walker, and D. Bichell. 1985. The human skeleton.Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.


THE EFFECT OF CHARLES DARWIN ON THEENGLISH VICTORIAN WRITER, THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY

JAY E. LONG*

Received 25 August 1993; Revised 9 September 1993

AbstractThe writing of Charles Darwin on evolution had a profound effect on the writings of some of the English

Victorian writers, especially Thomas Henry Huxley. This article presents a brief summary of that effect.**

IntroductionThe publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the

Species had a profound effect on several writers of theVictorian Period of English literature. Some of theVictorian writers were considered to have seldom beenaware of their own limitations and would thereforeattempt to deal with realms of thought, emotion, orbehavior with which they were not fitted to deal.Examples of this would be Alfred, Lord Tennyson inpoetry dealing with the slums or Matthew Arnold inhis essays dealing with theology. The Victorian Agewas one of floundering. The writers searched theirhearts and wrote, but what they often faced was aconfusion that their heads could not clarify. One pointof confusion was that of Darwin’s publication.

HuxleyThomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) was one Victorian

writer who was especially affected by Darwin’s Originof the Species. It was in 1859 when that work waspublished and the theories of science seemed for onceto become comprehensible to the great mass of people.The idea of evolution, until then little known by thepublic, strongly reinforced the agnostic element ofsome writers of the age. Huxley was one of thosewriters who for the next decade or two made theliterary and thoughtful world resound with fury. Hestands for the Victorian agnostic mind.

A scientist of distinction, Huxley devoted himselflargely to maintaining Darwin’s doctrine and combatingChristian dogma. He became a popular figure, standingfor the new enlightenment. As a humanist, he did notaccept such doctrines as those that deal with originalsin and the fall of man. Darwin and Huxley togethershocked the faithful. The designations “unbeliever”and “atheist” carried a stigma; and in Victorian societyit was important not to have such designations if oneexpected to be accepted socially. The motivating forcethat drove Huxley was his feeling of animosity towardsthe clergy who at the time had much greater statusthan the scientist (Taylor, 1984, p. 365).

Huxley did not agree with all that Darwin said, butOrigin of the Species gave him the opportunity heneeded to do public battle with church authority. Hemade quotations that were actually deceptive argu-ments, assuming evolution to be proven. The publica-tion of Darwin’s book became a great event for Huxleywho was to become the great champion of Darwinism.

*Jay. E. Long, Ed.D., Baptist Bible College, Clarks Summit, PA18411.

**Editors note: Creationist material which further explores thehumanities in depth may be found in the Quarterly published bythe Creation Social Science and Humanities Society, 1429 N.Holyoke, Wichita, KS 67208.

Using excellent powers of thought and expression,Huxley explained and supported Darwin’s views beforevarious kinds of audiences. He wrote essays, he de-bated, he lectured. His clear and forceful presentationsof Darwinism were declared by Darwin himself to be“simply perfect” (McComb, 1910, p. xii). Huxley didmuch to advance the cause of evolution, having becomethe expositor for the theory developed by his friend,Darwin. He earned himself the title of “Darwin’s bull-dog” (deBeer, 1974, p. xiii), and he spoiled all attemptsof the Church of England to discredit evolution.

Theism and AgnosticismDarwin, well aware of the sharpness of his friend’s

power of analysis and the speed of his thought, sug-gested that Huxley put some of his lectures in essayform. Huxley’s opinion of Darwin was one of greatadmiration and respect. The two men were alike insome respects; but one difference between the twowas that Huxley, in spite of his uncompromising de-fense of evolution and his denial of divine design innature, advocated the teaching of the Bible. Huxleywas a deeply religious man but could not bear theologywith its dogmatism and its clutter of “scientificallydisproved assertions.” Huxley took his own positionwhen he wrote, “There is no evidence of such a beingas the God of theologians,” while he asserted thatatheism is, on purely philosophical grounds, untenable(deBeer, 1974, p. xvii). In place of both views, headvanced the principle of agnosticism, by which hemeant the subordination of belief to evidence andreason. Darwin also acknowledged himself as an agnos-tic. Darwin made the following statement about theOld Testament:

I had gradually come to see that the Old Testa-ment from its manifestly false history of the world. . . was no more to be trusted than the sacredbooks of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of anybarbarian . . . I gradually came to disbelieve inChristianity as a divine revelation . . . disbeliefcrept over me at a very slow rate, but was at lastcomplete. The rate was so slow that I felt nodistress, and have never since doubted even for asingle second that my conclusion was correct(Farrington, 1966, pp. 93-94).

He referred to such accounts as Noah’s Ark as “oldoriental tales” and “imaginative truth.” He regardedthe ennobling belief in an omnipotent God as a productof biological evolution. The effect of Darwin’s workwas supposed to have brought to an end the practiceof using the Bible as an authority on physical andbiological science.


In abandoning Christianity Darwin did not becomean atheist. At one point he says he reverted to thetheism of his father and grandfather (Farrington, 1966,p. 96). The conclusion that he was a theist was strongin his mind when he wrote Origin of the Species, butgradually became weaker. He finally came to theconclusion that “agnostic” would be the more correctdescription of his state of mind. The clash betweenreligion and science has left its mark on our history.Thomas Huxley stated that he would rather be de-scended from a humble monkey than from a man whoemployed his eloquence misrepresenting earnest menwho were wearing out their lives in the search for truth(Farrington, 1966, p. 10).

ConclusionHuxley, regarding heresy rather than orthodoxy as

the hallmark of truth, deliberately flaunted his views.He insisted that his zeal never reduced him to the roleof a mere advocate or blind partisan. He did havesome reservations about Darwin’s theory, but thesewere more than made up for by his enthusiasm inother directions. He was considered Darwin’s chiefagent in England. There were many who agreed withHuxley that one of the great merits of the theory ofevolution was its complete and irreconcilable antagon-ism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highestintellectual, moral, and social life of mankind—theCatholic church—and not Catholicism alone, but allreligion (Himmelfarb, 1959, p. 388).

The basic religious quarrel provoked by the Originof the Species was between the reconcilers and irrecon-

BOOK

cilables—those who believed the Origin to be com-patible with Christianity and those who thought it wasnot. Huxley stated,

There must be some position from which thereconcilers of science and Genesis will not retreat. . . Agnostics and believers alike objected thatsuch a god who is the final reason of everything isthe scientific explanation of nothing (Himmelfarb,1959, p. 397).

He called the question of questions for the nineteenthcentury—“man’s place in nature” (Tillotson, 1978, p.58). Huxley lost his faith long before he discovered thetheory of evolution and apparently out of a tempera-mental repugnance to the idea of the supernatural.

Charles Darwin, the man who supposedly shatteredthe creationist views taught by the Church on the basisof the first two chapters of Genesis, greatly affectedwriters of the Victorian Period of English literature,and one of the most greatly affected was ThomasHenry Huxley.

ReferencesdeBeer G. 1974. Charles Darwin-Thomas Henry Huxley autobiogra-

phies. Oxford University Press. London.Farrington, B. 1966. What Darwin really said. Schocken Books. New

York.Himmelfarb, G. 1959. Darwin and the Darwinian revolution. W. W.

Norton. New York.McComb, E. H. K. (Editor) 1910. Huxley’s autobiography and se-

lected essays from lay sermons. Longmans, Green. New York.Taylor, I. T. 1984. In the minds of men—Darwin and the new world

order. TFE Publishing. Toronto.Tillotson, G. 1978. A view of Victorian literature. Clarendon Press.

Oxford.

REVIEW
God, The Big Bang and Stephen Hawking by David
Wilkerson. 1993. Monarch Publications. Kent, Eng-land. 156 pages. Paperback Price £ 7.99.

Reviewed by Don B. DeYoung*Dr. David Wilkerson is one of those few with solid

training in both science and theology. His Ph.D. is intheoretical astrophysics; he is a Methodist minister andcurrently chaplain at Liverpool University.

For creationists, the book is rather frustrating toread. On one hand, Wilkerson rightly challenges thearrogant origin pronouncements of secular science. Atthe same time, he greatly diminishes the literal creationmessage of Genesis.

Wilkerson gives very clear presentations of blackholes (p. 34), the anthropic principle (p. 108), chaostheory (p. 59), and Stephen Hawking’s view of cos-mology (p. 86). It is rightly said that Hawking’s sought-after physical “theory of everything” does not answerevery question—there is still room for God. PhysicistEveretts’ bizarre idea that new universes are constantlyforming in abundance, like a runaway chain reaction,*Don B. DeYoung, Ph.D., Grace College, 200 Seminary Drive,Winona Lake, IN 46590.

is also discounted. The book illustrations are uniqueand helpful; the writing is technically accurate.

With this hopeful beginning, the book unfortunatelyturns out to compromise creation, like so many others.Author Wilkerson is too saturated by science to ques-tion its conclusions. Hence he accepts the big bang(p. 141), biological evolution (p. 18), and vast ages.Wilkerson also accepts the comfortable but false viewthat Genesis describes the “why” (p. 127) of creationbut not the “how” (p. 136). This old “Double Revela-tion” view manages to undervalue Scripture while atthe same time it overvalues the ability of science toexplain first causes. Wilkerson achieves this feat, in hismind, by concluding that Genesis is not history at all,but instead some other kind of literary form (p. 152).He uses the term “complementary accounts” for Bibleand science data.

The book is not without value in understanding mod-ern science. Dr. Wilkerson even recognizes and respectsthe British organization Creation Resources Trust (p.144). To appreciate the wonderfully detailed biblicalaccount of Creation, however, the book needs to besupplemented by creationist material. The book con-tains just 32 references and no index.


PINE CREEK GORGE, THE GRAND CANYON OF PENNSYLVANIA:AN INTRODUCTORY CREATIONIST STUDY

EMMETT L. WILLIAMS, EUGENE F. CHAFFIN, ROBERT M. GOETTE AND JOHN R. MEYER*

Received 14 September 1993; Revised 15 November 1993

AbstractThe origin of Pine Creek Gorge in Pennsylvania is discussed from a young earth perspective as well as from a

uniformitarian viewpoint. Field work in the region of the gorge is presented. Uniformitarian and creationistconjectures on the formation of the Appalachian Plateau, where the gorge is located, are reviewed.Key Words: Pine Creek Gorge, Appalachian Plateau, Catskill Formation, Lock Haven Formation, Delta Deposition.

IntroductionWhen one accepts a recent Creation and Flood model

of earth history, obviously many natural events such ascanyon formation are assumed to have occurred quick-ly. Involved in rapid canyon formation is rapid erosion,a topic often discussed in the Quarterly. For instance,three articles (Williams et al., 1991; 1992a; 1992b) pre-sented various views on the formation of the GrandCanyon of the Colorado River (references to othercreationist works on the subject can be found in theseries). This paper on Pine Creek Gorge is anotherintroductory study reflecting the continuing field workof the Society on the topics of rapid erosion and canyonformation, important aspects of Flood geology.

Pine Creek Gorge is located approximately 50 milessouth of the Finger Lake region of New York state.Known as the Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania, thisunusual gorge (Figures 1 and 2), starts in Tioga Countyat Ansonia and extends nearly 50 miles southward tothe edge of the Appalachian Plateau about five milesnorth of Jersey Shore in Lycoming County. Located ina sparsely populated region of north-central Pennsyl-vania, the gorge has attracted the attention of geologistsfor over 100 years. Since many interesting scenarios ofdrainage diversion have been developed for some ofthe rivers and creeks of Pennsylvania, it should be ofno surprise that fascinating accounts of how this gorgeoriginated have been postulated as well. These theorieswill be reviewed and we will offer other suggestionsconcerning the origin of Pine Creek Gorge. All of ourconjectures will be cast within a creationist young-earth framework.

Appalachian Plateaus ProvincePine Creek Gorge is located on the Appalachian

Plateau (Figures 3 and 4). Hunt’s description (1974, p.252) of this physiographic province is helpful:

West of the fold mountains are the AppalachianPlateaus. The formations are nearly horizontal, atypical plateau structure, but they are so elevatedand dissected that the landforms are in a largepart mountainous. Thus the Appalachian Plateausare mountainous with a plateau structure, . . .

A dissected plateau structure could have formed asillustrated in Figure 5.*Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D., 5993 Williamsport Drive, Norcross,GA 30092-2124; Eugene F. Chaffin Ph.D. 715 Tazewell Ave. Blue-field, VA 24605. Robert M. Goette Ph.D., 215 Karen Court, Nice-ville, FL 32578; John R. Meyer, PhD., Director Van Andel GrandCanyon Study Center, Creation Research Society, P.O. Box 376,Chino Valley, AZ 86323.

Figure 1. Pine Creek in north-central Pennsylvania; Pine CreekGorge starts at the village of Ansonia and continues to the edge ofthe Appalachian Plateau approximately five miles north of the con-fluence of the Creek and the West Branch of the Susquehanna Rivernear the town of Jersey Shore. Dashed lines represent county lines.Drawing by Emmett Williams.

The Appalachian Plateaus occupy an area equal tothat of the Piedmont, Blue Ridge and Ridge and ValleyProvinces combined (Hunt, 1974, p. 262). The Plateauregion is:

. . . an elevated tract of nearly horizontal or gentlyfolded strata. . . . Altitudes range from about 1,000feet along the western edges to somewhat morethan 3,000 feet at the Allegheny Front (Hunt, 1974,p. 262).

The gently folded strata are sedimentary rock of Paleo-zoic age (Denny and Lyford, 1963, p. 2). The Provinceis divided into several sections based on differences instructure and prevailing erosion processes (Hunt, 1974,p. 262).

StratigraphyPine Creek Gorge cuts through Upper Devonian

rocks—mainly the Catskill formation (Figure 6). How-ever from Ansonia to about one mile south of Tiadagh-ton, a distance of 10 miles, Pine Creek passes throughrocks of the Upper Devonian Lock Haven formation(Berg et al. 1980). The Lock Haven formation (Figure7), called the Chemung formation by previous workers,


2a.

2b.

2c.Figure 2. Views of Pine Creek Gorge

a. Aerial view of gorge looking NNW toward west rim, entranceof gorge at Ansonia is in upper right portion of figure, Novem-ber 1991. Photograph by Robert Goette.

b. Aerial view of gorge looking west, Pinafore Run is seen atlower left and Owasse Slide Run to the right two miles south-west of Ansonia, November 1991. Photograph by Robert Goette.

c. View of the gorge from a vista in Colton Point State Park(Figure 9) looking NNE, July 1992. Photograph by RobertGoette.

Figure 3. Simplified drawing of the physiographic provinces ofPennsylvania (after Berg et al., 1989). The Appalachian PlateausProvince extends from western Pennsylvania northeastward alongthe northern portion of the state. Only the Allegheny MountainSection of the Appalachian Plateaus is shown on the figure.

— late Wisconsinian glacial border— location of Pine Creek Gorge

was “. . . named to apply to the interval of rockbetween the Brailler and Catskill formations . . .” (Failland Wells, 1977a, p. 32). There are no exposures of theBrailler formation in Pine Creek Gorge, nor is the baseof the Lock Haven formation visible. Thus care mustbe exercised in the use of the Lock Haven designationat that location.

There is no published geologic map of Pine CreekGorge (Faill, 1992). However, the Cedar Run, SlateRun and Waterville quadrangles have been mapped inthe lower (southern) gorge region (Colton, 1963; Coltonand Luft, 1965; Colton, 1968). These investigatorssimply noted the Upper Devonian strata informally asred-bed sequence and lower sandstone sequence. Col-ton (1963) explained that formal stratigraphic nameshave been used in earlier reports by other geologists“. . . although few if any rock units have been previ-ously traced from their type areas in other parts ofPennsylvania into the north-central part of the state.” Abrief description of the lithology of the Catskill andLock Haven formations is given in Table I.

For possible correlation of these formations withother strata, see Sevon and Woodrow (1985, p. 4);Woodrow et al. (1988, p. 281). A description of theCatskill and Lock Haven formations in other parts ofLycoming County can be found in Faill and Wells

Table I. Description of Catskill and Lock HavenFormations (after Berg et al., 1980).

Thickness [feet]Tioga County, PA(after Seven and

Formation Woodrow, 1981) Lithology

Catskill 500 - 1400(?) Succession of grayish-red sand-stone, siltstone and shale, generallyin fining-upward cycles; somegray sandstone and conglomerate

Lock Haven 2250 - 2900(?) Interbedded olive-gray sandstone,claystone and thin conglomerate;marine fossils throughout

4 6 CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY

4a.

4b.

4c.Figure 4. Views of the dissected Appalachian Plateau, north-centralPennsylvania. Note the almost flat plateau surface.

a. Aerial view looking north along Pine Creek Gorge towardAnsonia in valley, November 1991. Photograph by RobertGoette.

b. View toward the north from Grand Canyon airport west ofWellsboro, August 1992. Photograph by Emmett Williams.

c. View looking north from Pine Creek vista on West Rim Road,1.4 miles west of Tiadaghton, August 1992. See Anon. 1990.Photograph by Robert Goette.

(1977a; 1977b). Humphreys and Friedman (1975) pro-vide another study of the Catskill formation in north-central Pennsylvania.

Uniformitarian Conjectures Concerning theOrigin of the Appalachian Plateau

Pine Creek Gorge is incised in Upper Devonianrocks. Earlier in the century, uniformitarian geologistssuggested that the Upper Devonian formations of the“Catskill Delta” were formed in a shallow sea locatedin a geosyncline. These sedimentary rocks in the deltawere deposited at the edge of the Appalachian Basinby processes similar to those that form deltas today.Seven and Woodrow (1981, p. 11) stated:

Throughout most of the Paleozoic, much of whatpresently constitutes the eastern half of NorthAmerica was part of an inland sea which inter-mittently received elastic sediment from an easternsource area. The Appalachian basin was the centralfocus of this sedimentation.

The largest integrated wedge of elastic sedimentin the basin was deposited by the Catskill deltasystem during the Middle and Upper Devonian.

Barren (1913, p. 466) explained that:

The uniformity in the character of the deltafrom northeast to southwest, its development mar-ginal to the uplands, and the somewhat rapid gra-dation from gravel to sand and clay on leaving themountains suggests the presence of a number ofcomparatively short streams which built flat co-alescing fans rather than the debouchment of oneor two great continental rivers.

Subsidence of the basin as the sediment collected isinvolved in the model. During the supposed formationof a delta complex from several sources, active orogenywas occurring to the east along with some local tectonicactivity. Also erosion of the mountains to the east wasthought to provide some of the sediment for deltaformation. Later, uplift of the “delta” occurred. How-ever as Sevon and Woodrow (1981, p. 19) explained:

Although the term delta has been applied manytimes to the origin of the progradational depositsof the Catskill delta, a specific model has neverbeen established.

If there was delta formation many different types ofdepositional environments would have existed, particu-larly as the delta increased in size. Sevon and Woodrow(1981, pp. 22-23) list 21 different depositional environ-ments that had been postulated from prior studies ofthe Middle and Upper Devonian rocks of New Yorkand Pennsylvania (also see Williams, 1985). RecentlyWoodrow (1985) and Woodrow et al. (1988) have syn-thesized models employing many of the depositionalmodes suggested in past field studies. It is interestingto note that the delta formation hypothesis has beenopposed by some field workers. Allen and Friend (1968)postulated deposition in a vast coastal alluvial plainrather than a delta. Walker and Harms (1971) andWalker (1971) offered evidence for deposition along a


quiet, prograding muddy shoreline. Gale and Siever(1986) contended that Middle to Upper DevonianCatskill sandstones in southeastern New York were“. . . part of a regressive alluvial plain sequence . . .”(p. 592).

Figure 5. Representation of horizontal sedimentary rock layersforming a plateau. Solid lines represent strata still intact whereasdashed lines represent layers that have been eroded away. Plateauhas been erosionally dissected, forming erosional mountains, afterMulfinger and Synder (1979, p. 334). Drawing by Emmett Williams.

Friedman and Sanders (1978, p. 186) argued foreither or both a deep burial of horizontal Devonianstrata in the northern Appalachian Basin or a past highgeothermal gradient; the latter based on a discovery ofanthracite in plant debris in the strata. Recently, Fried-man (1987) offered more evidence for deep burial asdid Gale and Siever (1986). If deep burial did occur,deposition in a shallow sea probably is not feasibleunless one assumes rapid subsidence into an ever deep-ening basin.

The array of “depositional environments” to beincorporated into a uniformitarian model is formidable!A mention of some of the scenarios will illustrate thispredicament concerning the formation of the “CatskillDelta.” Dennison and Head (1975) emphasized trans-gressions and regressions that caused shoreline migrationduring deposition. Woodrow and Isley (1983) discussedthe importance of deposition by turbidity currents.The model proposed by Woodrow (1985) combinedalluvial processes, deltaic processes, wave-related pro-cesses, turbidity currents and slow deposition fromsuspension. Sevon (1985) examined deposition of non-marine facies by meandering or braided streams. Lun-degard et al. (1985) considered turbidite sequences inthe Appalachian Basin. Bridge and Droser (1985) postu-lated estuarine-brackish water coastal bay origin forcertain Upper Devonian sedimentary sequences in Penn-sylvania. Slingerland and Loulé (1988) presented evi-dence for wind/wave and tidal processes involved indeposition along the Upper Devonian Catskill shoreline.The relationship of tectonic processes affecting deposi-tion was discussed by Ettensohn (1985), Faill (1985),Ferrill and Thomas (1988), Jackson et al. (1988), Millerand Kent (1988) and Rast (1989).

This brief survey indicates the considerable amountof detail that must be included in a comprehensivedepositional model for the “Catskill Delta” if it isassumed that all of the above sedimentary modes oper-ated in the past. For further details on the formationof deltas see LeBlanc (1975), Colella (1988) and Smithet al. (1990).

Creationist Conjectures RegardingFormation of Alleged Ancient Deltas

Henry Morris has criticized the concept of deposi-tion in geosynclines (near-shore troughs) and ancientshallow seas with attendant subsidence (Whitcomband Morris, 1961, pp. 144-150). He also discussed theweaknesses in attempting to identify ancient environ-ments of sedimentation on the basis of imaginedsimilarity with present deposition processes (Morris,1966, pp. 52-53). Burdick (1964, p. 42) claimed thatinterbedding was difficult to explain by uniformitarianprocesses and it could not be caused by deltaic, floodor wave action in a shallow sea. He suggested that aFlood tidal wave moving in one direction, then a laterreversal with a tidal wave moving in the oppositedirection depositing the interbedded layers, was asuperior mechanism.

Since there are red beds in the Catskill formation,creationist comments on the development of thesesediments would be appropriate. In a paper on thered beds of western United States, Clark (1966, pp.12-16) postulated that they were Flood deposits. Hestated (p. 12):

A general lack of sources for these vast depositsof sandstone, shale and conglomerate is shown ascritical to a satisfactory explanation of them fromthe viewpoint of uniformitarianism. Conclusionsare (1) sediments were brought in from great dis-tances, (2) great sweeps of water instead of localriver or flood action were necessary to spreadout these sediments over this vast area and (3)the various formations were laid down one afterthe other in rapid succession.

Clark (1971, p. 21) also briefly discussed the forma-tion of a “vast series of deltas” in the Appalachianregion as being a result of Flood action. In a paleo-ecological study of the black shales of the Pennsyl-vanian system of west-central Illinois, Peters (1971, p.193) noted that, “All of the reported observationsstrongly support the Biblical tidal interpretation offossil deposition and burial.” This excellent field andlaboratory work deserves serious study by creationists.

The Mississippi River delta has been studied andanalyzed within a young earth framework (Allen,1972; Mehlert, 1988). Allen (pp. 103-108) presentedseven points of evidence that “apparently disprovethe theory that delta sediments depress the crust ofthe earth” (p. 108). Also he considered that no river,estuary or normal ocean could have transported ordeposited the underlying gravel stratum in the Missis-sippi River delta (p. 112).

In an extensive discussion of cyclic sedimentation(deposition of cyclothems), Woodmorappe (1978) ex-amined the claim that most Paleozoic sedimentationoccurred in shallow seas (p. 196). He noted that:

. . . uniformitarianism breaks down in its attemptsto find bona fide examples of such shallow seastoday. . . . There simply is no existing models[sic] of epeiric sedimentation to guide our investi-gations . . . (p. 196).


6a.

6b.

6c.

6d.Figure 6. Sections of Catskill formation, north-central Pennsylvania

a. Road cut along US route 15, four miles northwest of Mansfield(Figure 9), above Tioga-Hammond Lake, August 1992. Photo-graph by Robert Goette.

b. A fossil pelecypod shell found in the Catskill formation atlocation in Figure 6a, Photograph by Robert Goette.

c. Road cut along PA route 414 at village of Cedar Run, lowersections of strata are “red beds” of Catskill formation, May1992. Photograph by Emmett Williams.

d. Typical cross-bedding, Catskill formation, Pine Creek Gorgenear Blackwell, May 1992. Photograph by Emmett Williams.

He suggested that the deposits are a result of the Floodand offered a Diluvial model to explain such sedimen-tation (pp. 197-199):

Two Diluvian conceptual terms are now coined:Floodwater Mass Movement (FMM), and Flood-water Depositional Milieu (FDM). For illustrativepurposes it may be stated that a long, thin, nar-row sandstone (which uniformitarians claim waslaid down by an ancient river; hence—by defini-tion—in a fluvial sedimentary environment) wasactually laid down by a swift, longitudinal FMM;the sandstone therein deposited in a torrentialFDM. . . Also since it is claimed that “Ancientalluvial plains” may have ”. . . wide lateral extent. . . “ it can mean that, in reality it was a wideswiftly moving FMM which laid down the sedi-mentary rock.

The . . . “shallow Paleozoic seas” were actuallyextremely-widespread but stagnant FMM’s (p. 199).


7a.

7c.

7e.

Figure 7. Sections of the Lock Haven formation, north-central Penn-sylvania

a. Railroad cut along PA route 287, 1 mile south of Tioga (Figure9), west of Tioga-Hammond Lake, August 1992. Photographby Robert Goette.

b. Lens of conglomerate in Lock Haven formation, same locationas a., August 1992. Photograph by Robert Goette.

c. Road cut along PA route 3006 between Stony Fork and Thump-town (4.75 miles northeast of Tiadaghton), August 1992. Noteflaggy layers of sandstone. Photograph by Robert Goette.

d. Fossils found at location in Figure 7c. From right to left in thecenter of the figure, an exposed cross-section of a crinoid stem,a spiriferid brachiopod and a gastropod. Photograph by EugeneChaffin.

e. Another impression of a brachiopods found at the same loca-tion. Photograph by Robert Goette.


Figure 8. Pine Creek flows generally in an eastward direction (fromleft to right in figure), then turns south at Ansonia (right angle turn)and flows toward the Gorge (beyond bottom of figure). MarshCreek flows generally from the north under the bridge joining PineCreek. Arrows indicate direction of flow of Pine Creek, November1991. Photograph by Robert Goette.

He concluded the discussion by stating that (pp. 199-200) :

Since “sedimentary environments” in ancient rockare “Imaginative,” the Diluvialist can justifiablyreject the entire concept of “Sedimentary Environ-ment” . . .

Sedimentation in basins along with tectonic activity ina Flood environment was discussed (p. 200). ThenWoodmorappe considered the source areas for the sedi-ment which formed the “Catskill Delta” and claimedthat the Flood transported material from a series ofsources (p. 202). He proposed a Diluvian interpretationof cyclothem facies in a prograding FMM front. In abrief discussion of sandstone and shale sedimentation,the author noted that “FMM dynamics easily explainthe different sedimentary/stratigraphic properties ofsandstone” (p. 205). He concluded as follows:

The basic sedimentary, stratigraphic, and tectonicproperties observed in cyclothemic rock providea picture of the recessional aspects of the Flood(p. 205).

This original Diluvian thinking should be studied whenviewing the Catskill Delta as a Flood deposit. LaterWoodmorappe (1980) again reviewed “ancient sedi-mentary environments” and offered commentary froma Flood sedimentation viewpoint. Concerning the Bral-lier formation found on the Appalachian Plateau, hestated that: “The prominence of turbidites is especiallysuggestive of large-scale Flood deposition” (p. 215).

Scheven (1990) briefly mentioned sedimentation indeep synclinal troughs and shallow basins (pp. 263-264).Tyler (1990) introduced a tectonically-controlled rock

Figure 9. Map showing some drainage patterns in Tioga and Brad-ford Counties Pennsylvania (after Crowl, 1981, p. 40). Drawing byEmmett Williams.

cycle model which included deposition within a fault-bounded sedimentary basin. He claimed that the model:

. . . provides a framework for interpreting suchdistinctive features as good lateral persistence ofbeds, abrupt transitions between beds, regular andthick bed thicknesses, constant orientation of bed-ding planes, and planar unconformities (p. 297).

Austin et al. (1991) offered evidence against deltaicdeposition of sandstones and shales in the Grand Canyonregion (pp. 22-31). Sand wave deposition from oceanwater and sources of the enormous quantity of sandneeded to form the sandstone were presented within aFlood framework. Other creationists have written oncertain aspects of Appalachian geology, e.g., McQueen(1986) and Chaffin (1990).

Speculations on the Origin of Pine Creek GorgeUpper Pine Creek flows generally in a southeasterly

direction in a low lying valley (Figure 8) until it meetsMarsh Creek at Ansonia, where it makes a right angleturn and flows through the narrow Pine Creek Gorge(Figure 9) located in the highlands of the AppalachianPlateau. Such an unusual (unexpected?) change in di-rection has generated some conjecture as to “why.”

Probably the first geologists to write about this changein direction of Pine Creek were Sherwood et al. (1878).We were unable to obtain their report, but in an earlyhistory (Anon., 1897) of Tioga County, this change indirection of flow of Pine Creek and its probable causewere briefly discussed.

Marsh creek which unites with Pine creek atAnsonia, is a remarkable stream, with a motion soslow as to be hardly perceptible. . . . Its directionis exactly the reverse of that pursued by UpperPine creek—as if the waters of Pine creek onceflowed up Marsh creek, straight on toward theTioga river. . . . It is a remarkable summit, ifsummit it can be called, which divides the waters


flowing down Marsh creek to Pine creek, andthose flowing down Crooked creek to the Tiogariver. The idea is . . . quite popular, says Mr.Sherwood, among the inhabitants that Pine creek,instead of flowing south through the gorge . . . ,flowed formerly through the valleys of Marsh creekand Crooked creek, into the Tioga river. . . . IfPine creek once flowed northward from Ansonia,what a mighty convulsion of nature must it havebeen that rent the mountain asunder and divertedits waters southward through one of the mostweird chasms to be found in the chain of theAlleghenies?

Another theory is that a small stream once hadits source south of the supposed wall, and, onaccount of a “fault” in the rocks . . . , worked asmall passage down the mountain. When the breastof the dam was broken, by the tremendous pres-sure behind it, there was such a mighty rush ofwater down the rivulet that in time the great chasmwas cut and the course of Pine creek changed tothe south (p. 26).

It was mentioned (pp. 26-27) that a lake may haveexisted in the valley north of the divide at Ansoniabefore the dam was breached. Sherwood is quoted (p.27) as stating that a dam, “fifty rods in length frommountain to mountain” formed possibly during a glacialperiod, could have acted as an effective drainage dividewhere Pine and Marsh Creeks join.

Alden and Fuller (1903a, 1903b) suggested that theprocesses of stream development and the advance ofice sheets caused a drainage diversion of Pine Creek atAnsonia. They claimed that a drainage divide existedabout two miles south of Ansonia (the lowest altitudedrainage divide in the area, see Figure 10). Before theadvance of any ice sheet, Pine Creek flowed northeastinto Marsh Creek at Ansonia, then into Crooked Creekand into Tioga River and eventually into the St. Law-rence River. The advance of the first pre-Wisconsin icesheet blocked the flow of the Tioga River near Corning,NY. The outflow was blocked and the water gatheredinto long, narrow lakes similar to the Finger Lakes ofNew York. The dammed water from the branchinglakes overtopped the drainage divide two miles southof Ansonia. (The attitude of the drainage divide isimpossible to determine at the present time because ofsubsequent erosion. ) The south-flowing streams, southof the drainage divide, had been eroding headwardtoward the divide and once the dam was overtoppedthese streams joined the surging lake water flowingsouthward into the west branch of the SusquehannaRiver and eventually into the Chesapeake Bay.

A second advance of a continental ice sheet (Wis-consin stage) again dammed the northeast-flowingdrainage with the formation of finger lakes and theexiting dammed water flowed into Pine Creek souththrough Pine Creek Gorge likely eroding it to greaterdepths.

In 1933 George Ashley briefly explained the drainagediversion as follows:

Glacial deposits are likely to make many changesin the drainage of an affected region. Thus, in

Figure 10. View looking WSW in Pine Creek Gorge near the con-fluence of Pinafore Run and Pine Creek approximately two milessouth of Ansonia, where the postulated drainage divide existed.Notice how narrow the gorge is at this location, August 1992. Photo-graph by Emmett Williams.

places, as the ice moved forward up a drainagebasin, the streams flowing toward the ice wereponded against its front until the pond rose tosuch a height that it overflowed the edge of thebasin into some other valley draining away fromthe front of the ice. This may have lasted longenough so that a new permanent outlet was estab-lished by cutting a deep gorge through the old rimof the basin. This happened, for example, withPine Creek the headwaters of which were tributaryof the Tioga River by way of Marsh Run. Thegorge below Ansonia was cut through the rim ofits old basin, making Pine Creek a tributary of theWest Branch of the Susquehanna (pp. 41-42).

Ashley expanded his explanation in 1945.For simplicity . . . suppose we divide Pine Creekinto Upper Pine Creek west of Ansonia and LowerPine Creek south of Ansonia.

At one time Upper Pine Creek used to flow eastand north past Ansonia by way of Marsh Creek,lower Crooked Creek and Tioga River, out of theState at Lawrenceville into New York State . .Lower Pine Creek had its real source in BabbCreek . . . (pp. 3-4).

The old drainage divide separating the northwardflow toward the St. Lawrence River and the southwardflow toward the Chesapeake Bay “. . . crossed TiogaCounty in a northeast-southwest direction about throughMansfield and Wellsboro” (p. 4). The divide was abroad arch of rock separating the north and south basins.Upper Pine Creek followed the basin to the northwhereas Lower Pine Creek followed the basin to thesouth. The arch was “worn down” after several millionyears of erosion and headward erosion from a south-flowing stream could have cut a deep gap in the divide(p. 6). Once the glaciation blocked the northeast flowand the dammed water overflowed the gap or col and“rapidly lowered the new channel” (p. 7) so that afterthe retreat of the ice, Pine Creek continued to flowsouth in the lower elevation channel (Pine Creek Gorge).


11c.
11a.
11b.

11d.

Figure 11 a. Soil profile above hammer in Pine Creek Gorge nearBurdic Run, about four miles downstream from An-sonia, May 1992. Denny (1956) referred to the stronglyweathered red drift as pre-Wisconsin paleosol. Photo-graph by Emmett Williams.

b. Kame northeast of Ansonia, May 1992. Photograph byEmmett Williams.

c. Cross-section of a kame, 0.5 mile east of Sabinsville,PA, May 1992. Photograph by Emmett Williams.

d. Likely a glaciofluvial deposit in the cut located at thewest end of the bridge across Babb Creek in Blackwell,PA along PA 414, August 1992. Photograph by RobertGoette.

VOLUME 31, JUNE 1994 5 3

12a.

12b.

Figure 12 a. Steeply folded and vertical strata of Catskill redbeds,2.8 miles north of intersection of US 220 and PA 44along Highway 44, August 1992. Photograph by RobertGoette.

b. Closer view of folded strata shown in lower right ofFigure 12a, August 1992. Photograph by Robert Goette.

c. Vertical flysch beds of Lock Haven formation approxi-mately 1.4 miles north of intersection of US 220 andPA 44 on railroad cut (along old Penn Central Railroadbed). Note soil creep at top of flysch layers, September1992. These strata are similar to the flysch beds of theHaymond formation in west Texas (Howe and Wil-liams 1994). Photograph by Robert Goette.

d. Small brachiopods found cemented in one of the flyschlayers along an old railroad cut, 2.1 miles north ofintersection of PA 44 and US 220 at Torbert, PA, August1992. Photograph by Robert Goette.


13a.Figure 13 a. Portion of debris slide near Red Ledge, 0.75 mile south

of Tiadaghton on the east slope of Pine Creek Gorge,May 1992. Photograph by Emmett Williams.

b. Small debris slide near Owassee (2.7 miles south ofAnsonia) on the east slope of Pine Creek Gorge, August1992. Photograph by Robert Goette.

Figure 14. A washout from a deposit along the east side of PA 414,0.7 mile north of Blackwell village limits sign, August 1992. Photo-graph by Robert Goette.

13b.

Figure 15. Computer simulation of slump terraces observed on theeast slope of Pine Creek Gorge one mile north of Tiadaghton.Drawing by Eugene Chaffin.


Denny (1956, p. 53) and Denny and Lyford (1963, p.18) studying the geomorphology, surficial geology andsoils of the region, “dated” the time of the drainagediversion as follows:

The overflow [of the dammed water] cut downthe divide, and subsequent erosion of both glacialand nonglacial origin has produced the presentcanyon. Since gravel dating from pre-Wisconsintime occurs in the valley of Pine Creek south ofthe Wisconsin drift border, the cutting of the gorgeprobably antedates the Illinoian stage . . . (Dennyand Lyford, 1963, p. 18).

In a more detailed model, Crowl (1981, p. 39) ex-plained:

The present drainage pattern of north-centralPennsylvania is the result of normal stream actionmodified by pre-glacial stream piracy and Pleisto-cene glacial ponding of streams with concomitantstream diversion across divides.

In discussing the pre-glacial drainage divide, he noted(p. 42):

. . . the divide between upper Pine Creek-MarshCreek-Crooked Creek drainage to the north andlower Pine Creek to the south lay along the presentheight of land about a mile north of LeonardHarrison/Colton State Parks. . . . Presumably a collay in the divide between the two streams.

Then the northeast drainage was blocked by “an earlyice sheet.” Meltwater lakes formed in the valleys. Thelake in the valley north of the Gorge drained throughthe col into lower Pine Creek.

Abundant water flow, a steep gradient south ofthe col, and severe frost action associated withice-marginal periglacial conditions would have se-verely broken these well-jointed rocks, and streamerosion would have been very effective at the site.Continued advance of the ice obliterated the lake,covered and scoured the divide (Crowl, 1981, pp.42-43).

Then Crowl speculated that likely the drainage changeoccurred during the period of “Nebraskan” glaciation(p. 43). Later glaciations were postulated so that theerosion process outlined above continued until theestablishment of “the present course of Pine Creek”(p. 43).

Since this view of drainage diversion was first sug-gested in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when W. M.Davis’ system of geomorphology exerted a strong influ-ence on geological studies, a bibliography is given inAddendum I for anyone interested in examining thesystem to determine if it is compatible with a model ofthe Flood and its after-effects.

Coates (1974) and Coates and Kirkland (1974) pro-posed a different hypothesis for the formation of PineCreek Gorge. Their view emphasized glacially-relatederosion from meltwater to form the Gorge rather thanany preglacial erosion. Referring to the region of thestate where the Gorge is located as the open foldssection, Coates (1974, p. 237) noted:

Some of the most important glacial effects inthis section occur in the northern part where largeproglacial lakes were ponded against the dividesof north-flowing rivers. Not only were thick gla-ciolacustrine deposits left throughout many valleysand on some hillslopes, but spectacular spillwaysformed by overflow of the lakes through narrowcols. . . . The most awe-inspiring of these featuresis the Pine Creek Gorge, . . . Here the nearlyvertical 700 ft. high walls of the 20 mi chasm wereformed by meltwaters impounded in the Tiogaand Cowanesque Rivers.

Coates and Kirkland (1974) suggested a sequence oflandscapes developed by glaciation on the AppalachianPlateau. They stated (p. 116):

There is one series of events which has receivedinadequate coverage in the literature that is crucialto the evolution of the glaciated landscape andsets it entirely apart from the unglaciated part ofthe Plateau—the character of drainage divides. Inthe glaciated region there is an unparalleled de-velopment of an entire family of landforms thatconstitute a continuous series with many grada-tions of glacial cols, chute valleys, sluiceways, andthrough valleys. Erosion is the dominant charac-teristic of the first three, whereas the fourth ismore dominated by transportation and depositionprocesses.

The first 16-20 miles of Pine Creek Gorge fromAnsonia southward is classified as a single-cycle sluice-way formed by meltwater from a “single glacial epi-sode” (p. 121). Sluiceways were defined as “elongatednarrow valleys with steep walls that contain only minortributaries due to the restricted width of the drainagedivide that nearly parallels the valley” (p. 121).

The actual effect of glaciation, the southernmostextent of glaciation, various glacially-related featuresand the number of glacial stages on the AppalachianPlateau are definitely not closed subjects. For instanceBraun (1989, p. 244) noted:

The only part of the Appalachians where thereis a consensus that glaciers have transformed thelandscape is in the Finger Lakes region of theAppalachian Plateau . . .

Interested readers may wish to consult the followingsources for further insight into the subject—Berg et al.,1981; Braun, 1989; Clark and Ciolkosz, 1988; Coates,1974; Coates and Kirkland, 1974; Crowl, 1981; Crowland Sevon, 1980; Denny, 1956; Denny and Lyford,1963; Hunt, 1974; Leighton, 1941; Leverett, 1934; Shepps,1962. See Figure 11 for some possible evidence ofglaciation around Pine Creek Gorge. In consideringsuch evidence, it would be well to heed Denny andLyford (1963, p. 5) in their discussion of local glacialdrift:

Strongly weathered gravel, perhaps glacial out-wash of pre-Wisconsin age, occurs along the WestBranch Susquehanna River and its principal tribu-taries, Pine, Lycoming, Loyalsock, and MunsyCreeks. . . . Whether such gravels are indeed gla-


cial outwash or whether they are alluvial depositsof nonglacial origin derived from adjacent high-lands has never been determined.

Also Crowl and Sevon (1980, pp. 48-51) did not alwaysagree with Denny and Lyford on their interpretationof evidence for glaciation in the Pine Creek Gorgeregion.

Most creationists who have written on the subjectprefer a single episode of continental glaciation afterthe Flood with possible regional advances and retreatswhich sometimes are interpreted as multiple glacia-tions. (See Addendum II for a selected bibliography ofcreationist writings on glaciation.)

Some speculation is offered on the formation of PineCreek Gorge based on a Flood-related model. It isassumed that the sediments that formed the Appala-chian Plateau were deposited rapidly and also thatwhen the Plateau was uplifted, these sedimentary layerswere not fully lithified. Other assumptions are that theuplifted Plateau contained many post-Flood lakes andthe climate was such that considerable precipitationlikely fell on the region (Oard, 1990). The presence ofmany lakes, soft sediments and high rainfall likelyresulted in the incising of the Plateau (Figure 5) as therunoff began to flow to lower altitudes toward theretreating ocean. Likewise many of the existing lakescould have been emptied due to this drainage from thePlateau.

If these assumptions are valid, a lengthy erosionprocess would not have been necessary to establishdrainage patterns on the Plateau. Steep-sided gulleyswould have developed quickly. Runoff water contain-ing abrasive matter removed from the soft sedimentswould scour the landscape as the water flowed tolower elevations. Thus Pine Creek Gorge could havestarted forming very soon after uplift.

Prior to a period of glaciation any cols or gaps, if inexistence, were likely not very high due to rapid erosionimmediately after the Flood. If the cols were completelyworn away or nonexistent, the present drainage patternin Lower Pine Creek would have been establishedbefore glaciation and any subsequent glacially dammedwater would have flowed southward through thealready-existing steep-sided gulley south of Ansoniadeepening it into the present gorge.

As one drives south on PA 44 toward Jersey Shore,the gently tilted Catskill rocks suddenly show steepertilting and folding south of Waterville (Figure 12) asone approaches the Allegheny Front. The steep tiltingis first noticeable on PA 44 at a location of 41°14’N,77°20’W (Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania quadrangle, USGStopographic map). It is suggested that the upliftedstrata could have formed a dam south of Waterville(the gorge is deepest at this village) blocking the south-flowing streams with the formation of small fingerlakes in the lower Pine Creek drainage system. If gla-ciation blocked the northeast drainage out of TiogaCounty, this dammed water, plus the glacial meltwater,would have extended the postulated finger lake in PineCreek Gorge to the north in the valley above Ansoniaforming a large body of water in this region. Theenormous pressure of water on the dam, the highamount of precipitation, the continued tectonic activityat the Allegheny Front along with the unlithified condi-

tion of the sediments in the dam would have con-tributed to the dam being breached. The subsequenterosion by the sediment-laden water draining towardthe south would have scoured the already dissectedPlateau even deeper along the path of Lower PineCreek. This erosion would have eradicated the damand destroyed any evidence of the postulated lakes.This tentative post-Flood scenario is offered as anotherpossibility for the origin of the drainage system ofLower Pine Creek and Pine Creek Gorge.

Summary and ConclusionsPostulated mechanisms for the formation of Pine

Creek Gorge have been reviewed. Also speculation forthe development of the gorge within a young earthmodel has been offered. The latter model suggests thefollowing possibilities:

1. Deposition of the sediments of the AppalachianPlateau in late stages of the Flood or immediately afterthe Flood.

2. Erosion of semi-consolidated sediments during orimmediately after deposition.

3. Considerable precipitation and/or outflow waterfrom the Plateau to cause (2).

4. Dam breaching or drainage divide overflowcaused by (3).

5. Drainage patterns developed quickly with thesubsequent lithification of sediments to stabilize thesepatterns.

6. Glaciofluvial water flow further deepened thedrainage path in the gorge.

Appendix IDebris Slides and Slumping in Pine Creek GorgeHuman activity in Pine Creek Gorge has been

intense in the past. Many sawmills and logging rail-roads were active in and around the gorge. Hemlock(Tsuga sp.) was removed to be used in the tanning ofleather and white pine (Pinus strobus Linnaeus) wascut for lumber (Taber, 1972). Until recently, the PennCentral ran trains through the gorge—the tracks havingbeen removed a few years ago. Also a severe floodoccurred in the area in 1832 (Clover, 1958, p. 10).

These activities probably disturbed much of the sur-ficial geology in the gorge and any remaining evi-dence of a prior lake likely has been destroyed.During the logging era, much of the tree cover wasremoved. The roads, trails, logging slides, etc. prob-ably encouraged debris slides and slumping duringperiods of heavy rainfall. While on the field trips tothe gorge, we found evidence of recent debris slides(Figure 13), washout (Figure 14) and slumping (Figure15). For other discussions of these geomorphic phe-nomena on the Appalachian Plateau, see Wilshusen,1979; Jacobson et al., 1989.

AcknowledgmentsThe following people offered helpful comments on

the manuscript; Ted Aufdemberge, George Howe,Michael Oard and John Woodmorappe. The opinionsexpressed in this paper remain solely those of theauthors. We thank the many donors to the CreationResearch Society Research Fund, interest from whichfinanced a portion of these studies.


GlossaryClastic—pertaining to a rock or sediment composed

primarily of fragments derived from pre-existingrocks or minerals and transported some distancefrom their place of origin

Col—A saddle-like depression in the crest of a mountainridge or the lowest point on a ridge

Cyclothems—sedimentary cycles that include coal bedsEpeiric—pertaining to an inland seaGlaciofluvial—pertaining to meltwater streams flowing

from glaciers and the deposits made by such streamsGlaciolacustrine—pertaining to deposits in glacial lakesPrograde—to grow seaward by the accumulation of

sediments; deltas often progradeTurbidites—sediments deposited from turbidity currents

Addendum IGeomorphic System of W. M. Davis

W. M. Davis developed his geomorphic system usingthe rivers and valleys of Pennsylvania as examples.This selected bibliography starts with his paper andthe later references are in chronological order. Theselater papers have ample bibliographies for further study.Davis, W. M. 1889. The rivers and valleys of Pennsylvania. The

National Geographic Magazine 1:183-253.Ruedemann, R. 1932. Development of drainage of the Catskills.

American Journal of Science 223:337-349.Mackin J. H. 1938. The origin of Appalachian drainage—a reply.

American Journal of Science 236:27-53.Strahler, A. N. 1945. Hypothesis of stream development in the folded

Appalachians of Pennsylvania. Geological Society of AmericaBulletin 56:45-87.

DeBethune, P. 1948. Geomorphic studies of the Appalachians ofPennsylvania. American Journal of Science 246:1-22.

Thompson, A. D. 1949. Drainage evolution in the Appalachians ofPennsylvania. Annals of the New York Academy of Science52:31-62.

Chorley, R. J. 1970. A re-evaluation of the geomorphic system of W.M. Davis in Chorley, R. J. and P. Haggett (editors). Frontiers ingeographical teaching. second edition. Methuen. London. pp.21-38.

Flemal, R. C. 1971. The attack on the Davisian system of geomor-phology: a synopsis. Journal of Geological Education 19:3-13.

Morisawa, M. 1989. Rivers and valleys of Pennsylvania, revisited.Geomorphology 2:1-22.

For a brief creationist evaluation of the Davis geomorphic systemsee Austin, S. A. 1983. Did landscapes evolve? Impact No. 118.Institute for Creation Research.

Addendum IISelected Bibliography of Creationist Writings on

Glaciation and Ice AgesCRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly.Armstrong, H. L. 1971. Icebergs and glacial gouge marks, a connec-

tion? CRSQ 8:69.1972. Evidence for Permian ice melts. CRSQ 8:275.

. 1972. Deep ice and the young earth. CRSQ 9:72-73.1972. Glaciers and the Flood. CRSQ 9:75.1972. Volcanic ash in Antarctic ice. CRSQ 9:134.1972. A catastrophic ice “age.” CRSQ 9:135.

1973. Arctic ice and recent post-Flood glaciation.CRSQ 10:70.

1973. A single glacial episode. CRSQ 10:121.1974. Glaciers or floating ice? CRSQ 11:163.1974. Varves, bands and layers. CRSQ 11:163.

1975. Marks may be ascribed wrongly to glaciers.CRSQ 11:218-219.

1976. Volcanoes and glaciers: a connection? CRSQ13:173.

Burdick, C. L. 1978. Evidence of glaciation in Wisconsin. CRSQ14:222-224.

Cox, D. E. 1976. Problems in the glacial theory. CRSQ 13:25-34.1977. Kames, eskers and the Deluge. CRSQ 14:47-52.1979. Controversy about ice ages. CRSQ 16:21-28.1979. Drumlins and diluvial currents. CRSQ 16:154-162.

Daly, R. M. 1973. The causes of the ice age. CRSQ 9:210-217.1974. Earth’s most challenging mysteries. Craig Press.

Nutley, NJ. pp. 142-184.1975. Was the ice age caused by the Flood? CRSQ

11:213-217.Henson, J., G. Mulfinger, R. Reymond, and E. Williams. 1968. Book

review of The Biblical Flood and the ice epoch 4:129-132.Molen, M. 1990. Diamictites: ice ages or gravity flows? Proceedings

of Second International Conference on Creationism. 30 July-4August Volume II. Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh, A.pp. 177-190.

Oard, M. J. 1979. A rapid post-Flood ice age. CRSQ 16:29-37, 58.1984. Ice ages: the mystery solved? Part I: The inade-

quacy of a uniformitarian ice age. CRSQ 21:66-76.1984. Ice ages: the mystery solved? Part II: The manipula-

tion of deep sea cores. CRSQ 21:125-137.1985. Ice ages: the mystery solved? Part III: Paleomag-

netic stratigraphy and data manipulation. CRSQ 21:170-181.1986. An ice age within the Biblical time frame. Proceed-

ings of the First International Conference on Creationism. 4-9August 1986. Volume II. Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh,PA. pp. 157-163.

1990. The evidence for only one ice age. Proceedings ofthe Second International Conference on Creationism. 30 July-4August. Volume II. Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh, PA.pp. 191-200.

1990. An ice age caused by the Genesis Flood. Institutefor Creation Research. El Cajon, CA.

1992. Varves—the first “absolute” chronology: Part l—his-torical development and the question of annual deposition. CRSQ29:72-80.

1992. Varves—the first “absolute” chronology: Part II—varve correlation and the post-glacial time scale. CRSQ 29:120-125.

1993. Antarctic glacial chronology and biostratigraphy ina muddle. CRSQ 30:89-90.

Patten, D. W. 1966. The ice age phenomena and a possible explana-tion. CRSQ 3(1):63-72.

Springstead W. A. 1971. Monoglaciology and the global Flood.CRSQ 8:175-182.

.1973. The creationist and continental glaciation.CRSQ 10:47-53.

Whitcomb, Jr., J. C. and H. M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood.Presbyterian and Reformed. Philadelphia. pp. 32, 125, 128, 143144, 210, 247-249, 254-255, 292-311, 322-324, 373.

ReferencesCRSQ—Creation Research Society Quarterly.Alden, W. C. and M. C. Fuller. 1903a. Geologic atlas of the United

States. Gaines Folio No. 92. United States Geological Survey.1903b. Geologic atlas of the United

States. Elkand-Tioga Folio No. 93. United States GeologicalSurvey.

Allen, B. F. 1972. The geologic age of the Mississippi River. CRSQ9:96-114.

Allen. J. R. L. and P. F. Friend. 1968. Deposition of the Catskill facies.Appalachian region: with notes on some other Old Red Sandstonebasins in Klein, G. K (editor). Late Paleozoic and Mesozoiccontinental sedimentation, northeastern North America. TheGeological Society of America Special Paper 106. pp. 21-74.

Anon. 1897. History of Tioga County, Pennsylvania. Volume I. R. C.Brown and Company. Tioga County Historical Society. Wellsboro,PA.

Anon. 1990. West Rim Trail and Upper Pine Creek Gorge float tripaccess areas, northern section, Tioga and Lycoming Countiesmap. Bureau of Forestry, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.Harrisburg.

Ashley, G. H. 1933. The scenery of Pennsylvania—its origin anddevelopment based on recent studies of physiographic and glacialhistory. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey Bulletin G6 (FourthSeries). pp. 41-43.

1945. The Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania. Pennsyl-vania Department of Internal Affairs Bulletin 13(7):3-7, 28.

Austin, S. A. et al. 1991. Grand Canyon: monument to catastrophism.Field study tour guidebook. Institute for Creation Research. ElCajon, CA. (prepublication copy)


Barrell, J. 1913. The Upper Devonian delta of the Appalachiangeosyncline. Part I: The delta and its relations to the interior sea.American Journal of Science 186:429-472.

Berg, T. M., G. H. Crowl, W. E. Edmunds, P. B. Lute, W. D. Sevon,J. P. Wilshusen and D. L. Woodrow. 1981. Glacial geology inGeology of Tioga and Bradford Counties, Pennsylvania. Guide-book for the 46th annual field conference of Pennsylvania geolo-gists. Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey. Harrisburg.pp. 142-145.

, W. E. Edmunds, A. R. Geyer, A. D. Glover, D. M. Hoskins,D. B. MacLachlan, S. I. Root, W. D. Savon and A. A. Socolow.1980. Geologic man of Pennsylvania. Bureau of Topographic andGeologic Survey. Harrisburg.

, J. H. Barnes, W. D. Sevon, V. W. Skema, J. P. Wilshusen andD. S. Yannacci. 1989. Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania.

Map 13. Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey Harrisburg.Braun, D. D. 1989. Glacial and periglacial erosion of the Appala-

chians. Geomorphology 2:233-256.Bridge, J. S. and M. L. Droser. 1985. Unusual marginal-marine litho-

facies from the Upper Devonian Catskill clastic wedge in Wood-row, D. L. and W. D. Sevon (editors). The Catskill Delta. TheGeological Society of America Special Paper 201. pp. 143-161.

Burdick, C. 1964. Streamlining stratigraphy. CRSQ 1(1):42-46.Chaffin, E. F. 1990. A preliminary report on the geology of southwest

Virginia. CRSQ 27:18-22.Clark, G. M. and E. J. Ciolkosz. 1988. Periglacial geomorphology of

the Appalachian highlands and interior highlands south of theglacial border—a review. Geomorphology 1:191-220.

Clark, H. W. 1966. The mystery of the red beds. CRSQ 3(2):12-16.. 1971. Paleoecology and the Flood. CRSQ 8:19-23.

Coates, D. R. 1974. Reappraisal of glaciated Appalachian Plateau inCoates, D. R. (editor) Glacial geomorphology. Proceedings vol-ume of the fifth annual geomorphology symposia. Publicationsin geomorphology. State University of New York at Binghamton.pp. 205-243.

and J. T. Kirkland. 1974. Applications of glacial modelsfor large-scale terrain derangements in Mahaney, W. C. (editor)Quaternary environments: Proceedings of the First York Univer-sity symposium on quaternary research. Toronto. pp. 99-135.

Colella, A. 1988. Fault-controlled marine Gilbert-type fan deltas.Geology 16:1031-1034.

Colton, G. W. 1963. Bedrock geology and surface structure of theCedar Run quadrangle, Tioga an Lycoming Counties, Pennsyl-vania. Progress Report 164. Bureau of Topographic and GeologicSurvey. Harrisburg.

and S. J. Luft. 1965. Bedrock geology and the SlateRun quadrangle, Clinton, Lycoming, and Potter Counties Penn-sylvania. Progress Report 167. Bureau of Topographic and Geo-logic Survey. Harrisburg.

. 1968. Bedrock geology of the Waterville quadrangle,Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Progress Report 174. Bureau ofTopographic and Geologic Survey. Harrisburg.

Crowl, G. H. and W. D. Sevon. 1980. Glacial border deposits of lateWisconsinan age in northeastern Pennsylvania. General GeologyReport 71. Fourth Series. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey. pp. 48-51.

1981. Glaciation in north-central Pennsylvania and thePine Creek Gorge in Geology of Tioga and Bradford Counties,Pennsylvania. Guidebook for the 46th annual field conference ofPennsylvania geologists. Bureau of Topographic and GeologicSurvey. Harrisburg, pp. 39-44.

Dennison, J. M. and J. W. Head. 1975. Sea level variations interpretedfrom the Appalachian Basin Silurian and Devonian. AmericanJournal of Science 275:1089-1120.

Denny, C. S. 1956. Surficial geology and geomorphology of PotterCounty Pennsylvania. United States Geological Survey Profes-sional Paper 288.

and W. H. Lyford. 1963. Surficial geology and soils ofthe Elmira-Williamsport Region, New York and Pennsylvania.United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 379.

Ettensohn, F. R. 1985. The Catskill Delta complex and the Acadianorogeny: a model in Woodrow D. L. and W. D. Sevon. TheCatskill Delta. The Geological Society of America Special Paper201. pp. 39-49.

Faill, R. T. 1985. The Acadian orogeny and the Catskill Delta inWoodrow, D. L. and W. D. Sevon (editors). The Catskill Delta.The Geological Society of America Special Paper 201. pp. 15-37.

1992. Personal correspondence. March 11.and R. B. Wells. 1977a. Bedrock geology and mineral

resources of the Salladasburg and Cogan Station quadrangles,Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Atlas 133cd. Fourth Series. Pen-nsylvania Geologic Survey. pp. 32-35.

. 1977b. Bedrock geology and mineralresources of the Linden and Williamsport quadrangles, LycomingCounty, Pennsylvania. Atlas 134ab. Fourth Series. PennsylvaniaGeologic Survey. pp. 28-31.

Ferrill, B. A. and W. A. Thomas. 1988. Acadian dextral transgressionand synorogenic sedimentary successions in the Appalachians.Geology 16:604-608.

Friedman, G. M. and J. E. Sanders. 1978. Principles of sedimentology.John Wiley. New York.

1987. Vertical movements of the crust: case historiesfrom the northern Appalachian Basin. Geology 15:1130-1133.

Gale, P. E. and R. Siever. 1986. Diagenesis of Middle to UpperDevonian Catskill facies sandstone in southeastern New York.American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 70:592-593.

Glover, E. A. 1958. Silas Billings: pioneer lumberman. Elkland JournalPress. Elkland, PA.

Howe, G. F. and E. L. Williams. 1994. The evolution of geologicaltheories: Part I—The Haymond Interbeds, Marathon Basin, Texas.CRSQ 31:25.

Humphreys, M. and G. M. Friedman. 1975. Late Devonian Catskilldeltaic complex in north-central Pennsylvania in Broussard, M. L.(editor). Deltas: models for exploration. Houston Geological So-ciety. pp. 369-379.

Hunt, C. B. 1974. Natural regions of the United States and Canada.W. H. Freeman. San Francisco. pp. 253-283.

Jacobson, R. B., A. J. Miller and J. A. Smith. 1989. The role ofcatastrophic geomorphic events in central Appalachian landscapeevolution. Geomorphology 2:257-284.

Jackson, M., C. McCabe: M. M. Ballard and R. Van der Voo. 1988.Magnetite authigenesls and diagenetic paleotemperatures acrossthe northern Appalachian basin. Geology 16:592-595.

Le Blanc, R. J. 1975. Significant studies of modern and ancientdeltaic sediments in Broussard, M. L. (editor). Deltas: models forexploration. Houston Geological Society.

Leighton, H. 1941. Clay and shale resources in Pennsylvania. BulletinM23. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey. p. 228

Leverett, F. 1934. Glacial deposits outside the Wisconsin terminalmoraine in Pennsylvania. Bulletin 67. Fourth Series. PennsylvaniaGeologic Survey.

Lundegard, P. D., N. D. Samuels and W. A. Pryor. 1985. UpperDevonian turbidite sequence, central and southern Appalachianbasin: contrasts with submarine fan deposits in Woodrow, D. L.and W. D. Sevon (editors). The Catskill Delta. The GeologicalSociety of America Special Paper 201. pp. 107-121.

McQueen, D. R. 1986. The southern Appalachian Mountains: anexample of 6,000 years of earth history in Walsh, R. E., C. L.Brooks and R. S. Crowell (editors). Proceedings of the FirstInternational Conference on Creationism. Volume II. CreationScience Fellowship. Pittsburgh. pp. 245-250.

Mehlert, A. W. 1988. Another look at the age and history of theMississippi River. CRSQ 25:121-123.

Miller, J. D. and D. V. Kent. 1988. Regional trends in the timing ofAlleghanian remagnetization in the Appalachians. Geology 16:588-591.

Morris, H. M. 1966. Hydraulics, sedimentation and catastrophism.CRSQ 3(1):51-54.

Mulfinger, Jr., G. L. and D. E. Snyder. 1979. Earth science forChristian schools. Bob Jones University Press. Greenville, SC.

Oard, M. J. 1990. An ice age caused by the Genesis Flood. Institutefor Creation Research. El Cajon, CA.

Peters, W. G. 1971. The cyclical black shales. CRSQ 7:193-200.Rast, N. 1989. The evolution of the Appalachian chain in Bally, A. W.

and A. R. Palmer (editors). The geology of North America—anoverview. The Geological Society of America. pp. 323-348.

Scheven, J. 1990. The Flood/post-Flood boundary in the fossil recordin Walsh, R. E. and C. L. Brooks (editors). Proceedings of theSecond International Conference on Creationism. Volume II.Creation Science Fellowship. Pittsburgh. pp. 247-266.

Sevon, W. D. 1985. Nonmarine facies of the Middle and Late Devo-nian Catskill coastal alluvial plain in Woodrow, D. L. and W. D.Sevon (editors). The Catskill Delta. The Geological Society ofAmerica Special Paper 201. pp. 79-90.

and D. L. Woodrow. 1981. Upper Devonian sedimen-tology and stratigraphy in geology of Tioga and Bradford Coun-ties, Pennsylvania. Guidebook for the 46th annual field conferenceof Pennsylvania geologists. Bureau of Topographic and GeologicSurvey. Harrisburg. pp. 11-26.


. 1985. Middle and Upper Devonianstratigraphy within the Appalachian basin in Woodrow, D. L. andW. D. Sevon (editors). The Catskill Delta. The Geological Societyof American Special Paper 201. pp. 1-14.

Shepps, V. C. 1962. Pennsylvania and the ice age. Educational SeriesNo. 6. Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey. Harrisburg.

Sherwood, A., F. Platt and J. Fulton. 1878. Report of progress inBradford and Tioga Counties. Report G. Second Series. Pennsyl-vania Geologic Survey. Harrisburg.

Slingerland, R. and J. P. Loulé. 1988. Wind/wave and tidal processesalong the Upper Devonian Catskill shoreline in Pennsylvania, U.S. A. in McMillan, N. J., A. F. Embry and D. J. Glass (editors).Devonian of the world: Proceedings of the Second InternationalSymposium on the Devonian System. Calgary, Canada. VolumeII: Sedimentation. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists.Calgary, Alberta. pp. 125-138.

Smith, N. D., A. C. Phillips and R. D. Powell, 1990. Tidal drawdown:a mechanism for producing cyclic sediment laminations in glacio-marine deltas. Geology 18:10-13.

Taber, III, T. T. 1972. Sunset along Susquehanna waters. Privately-published. Muncy, PA. pp. 430-492.

Tyler, D. J. 1990. A tectonically-controlled rock cycle in Walsh, R. E.and C. L. Brooks (editors). Proceedings of the Second Inter-national Conference on Creationism. Volume II. Creation ScienceFellowship. Pittsburgh. pp. 293-301.

Walker, R. G. and J. C. Harms. 1971. The “Catskill Delta”: a prograd-ing muddy shoreline in central Pennsylvania. Journal of Geology79:381-399.

1971. Nondeltaic depositional environments in theCatskill clastic wedge (Upper Devonian) of central Pennsylvania.Geological Society of America Bulletin 82:1305-1326.

Whitcomb, J. C. and H. M. Morris. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presby-terian and Reformed. Philadelphia.

Williams, E. G. 1985. Catskill sedimentation in central Pennsylvaniain Central Pennsylvania geology revisited. Guidebook for the50th annual field conference of Pennsylvania geologists. Bureau ofTopographic and Geologic Survey. Harrisburg pp. 20-25,61-62.

Williams, E. L., J. R. Meyer and G. W. Wolfrom. 1991. Erosion of theGrand Canyon of the Colorado River: Part I—Review of ante-

BOOK R

cedent river hypothesis and the postulation of large quantities ofrapidly flowing water as the primary agent of erosion. CRSQ28:92-98.

1992a. Erosion of theGrand Canyon of the Colorado River: Part II—Review of rivercapture, piping and ancestral river hypotheses and the possibleformation of vast lakes. CRSQ 28:138-145.

1992b. Erosion of theGrand Canyon of the Colorado River: Part III—Review of thepossible formation of basins and lakes on Colorado Plateau anddifferent climatic conditions in the past. CRSQ 29:18-24.

Wilshusen, J. P. 1979. Geologic hazards in Pennsylvania. EducationSeries 9. Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey. Harris-burg.

Woodmorappe, J. 1978. A diluvian interpretation of ancient cyclicsedimentation. CRSQ 14:189-208. Also in Woodmorappe, J. 1993.Studies in Flood geology. Institute for Creation Research. ElCajon, CA (available from CRS Books).

. 1980. An anthology of matters significant to crea-tionism and diluviology: Report CRSQ 16:209-219,227. Also inWoodmorappe, J. 1993 Studies in Flood geology Institute forCreation Research. El Cajon, CA (available from CRS Books).

Woodrow, D. L. 1985. Paleogeography, paleoclimate and sedimentaryprocesses of the Late Devonian Catskill Delta in Woodrow, D. L.and W. D. Sevon (editors). The Catskill Delta. The GeologicalSociety of America Special Paper 201. pp. 51-63.

and A. N. Isley. 1983. Facies, topography, andsedimentary processes in the Catskill Sea (Devonian), New Yorkand Pennsylvania. Geological Society of America Bulletin 94:459-470.

, J. M. Dennison, F. R. Ettensohn, W. T. Sevon andW. T. Kirchgasser. 1988. Middle and Upper Devonian stratigraphyand paleogeography of central and southern Appalachians andeastern midcontinent, U.S.A. in McMillan, N. A. F. Embry andD. L. Glass (editors). Devonian of the world. Proceedings of theSecond International Symposium on the Devonian System. Cal-gary, Canada. Volume I: Regional synthesis. Canadian Society ofPetroleum Geologists. Calgary, Alberta. pp. 277-301.

EVIEWS

Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Bio-logical Origins.” Second edition by Percival Davisand Dean H. Kenyon. 1993. Haughton PublishingCompany. Dallas, TX. 170 pages. $18.00 hardback.

Reviewed by Wayne Frair**

Two types of pandas (giant and red) are native tothe bamboo forests of southwest China. Both sharemany similar features including internal organs, be-havior and sesamoid-bone “thumbs” for stripping theleaves off bamboo shoots. Even though the two pandasare alike in many ways, the giant panda is classified inthe bear family and red panda in the raccoon family.Are the many similarities between the two types due todescent from common ancestry (homology), due toliving in like habitats (convergence), or because theyreflect design?

Using the panda as only one example the authors ofthis book authoritatively make an impressive caseagainst evolution and the “intelligent design.” This de-sign would be “analogous” to the comparison of thehead of a U.S. president on Mt. Rushmore in SouthDakota with the Old Man of the Mountain in New

*Editor’s note: The first edition of this book was reviewed byTrevor Major. 1990. CRSQ 27:38.

**Wayne Frair, Ph.D., The King’s College, Briarcliff Manor, NY10510.

Hampshire. The former which was carved by man isevidence of intelligent design; whereas the latter is anatural rock formation which resembles a human head.

Various examples of design are explained in the sixchapters which cover the origin of life, genetics, macro-evolution, the fossil record, homology and biochemicalsimilarities.

The book is well-illustrated with color drawings andphotographs, has a helpful glossary and index, someword pronunciations in the text, a page with biog-raphies of authors, and references at ends of chapters.Academic Editor for the book was Charles B. Thaxton.Two others, Mark D. Hartwig and Stephen C. Meyerwrote “A Note to Teachers,” which is an 11-page chapterat the end of the text. I found this particular chapter tobe especially valuable in supporting and justifying thepurpose of the book and in conveying a good under-standing of the scientific method.

Pandas was written to be used as a supplement to“standard” biology texts assigned in high schools andcolleges. The book may be somewhat advanced for anunmotivated high school student in an entry levelcourse. But upper level high school and college stu-dents should find it very helpful. Biologists in variousfields, and even more importantly, teachers at all levels,should read this book. The authors say:


By using this text in conjunction with your standardbasal text, you will help your students learn tograpple with multiple competing hypotheses andto maintain an open but critical posture towardscientific knowledge. As students learn to weighand sort competing views and become active par-ticipants in the clash of ideas, you may be surprisedat the level of motivation and achievement dis-played by your students (p. 154).

At this time many evolutionists with stress upon“natural selection” as a mechanism are proclaimingevolution to be a fact. But this book emphatically isopposed to evolution.

In sum, then, only in the most trivial sense—changeover time—can evolution be considered a fact.Far from being a legitimate reason for avoidingalternative views, the alleged “fact of evolution”underscores precisely why a book like Pandas isso necessary. If students are to achieve true scien-tific literacy, they must learn to distinguish factfrom supposition. A curriculum that blurs thisdistinction serves neither the students nor society(p. 157).

The authors indicate that evolution does not belongwith observable, repeatable and falsifiable scientifictheories.

. . . the events which produced the fossil recordare historical (singular) rather than repeatable, likethe motion of the planets, for example. Such sce-narios about events that are done and gone winour allegiance by being reasonable in light of thetotal evidence, not because they are proven. With-out observation or testing, as could be done for atheory of planetary motion, there is no “proof” or“disproof’ possible (pp. 87-88).

With regard to Darwin’s view of human “evolution”the authors say:

It is interesting to note that in his book, The De-scent of Man, Darwin did not cite a single referenceto fossils in support of his belief in human evolu-tion. Clearly his original idea of human evolutiondid not grow out of a study of human fossil evi-dence, but out of a previously held opinion aboutthe origin of man. The same is true of many re-searchers today (p. 107).

The concept of intelligent design is not new, for it isthe basis of the ancient concept of teleology. ButCharles Darwin and more recently Richard Dawkinsinterpreted apparent design as illusory.

Like Darwin himself, Dawkins acknowledges thatbiological organisms appear to exhibit remarkabledesign. Yet both men claim that this appearance isan illusion, produced entirely by random variationand natural selection. Blind nature mimics intelli-gent design (p. 156).

Authors writing in Pandas want to turn thoughtsback to what they believe very strongly is “a plausiblealternative to the blind watchmaker thesis (p. 157).They say:

Intelligent design, by contrast, locates the originof new organisms in an immaterial cause: in ablueprint, a plan, a pattern, devised by an intelli-gent agent (p. 14).

. . . the plausibility of apparent design has suffered,while the rationale for reconsidering real designhas grown stronger (p. 126).

It is interesting that Charles Darwin and AlfredWallace, who presented natural selection to a listeningworld in 1858, later had disagreements because “Wallacebelieved that the human brain was the result of intelli-gent design. Darwin disagreed . . .”, and he held “thatman evolved by natural means from some nonhumancreature” (p. 107).

Intelligent design is responsible for the fully-formedorganisms that appear in the fossil record without inter-mediates linking them to something else. In fact DNA,proteins, metabolic pathways, cells, interacting systems(chemical and physical), genetics and sophisticatedadaptations all bear testimony to intelligent design.But just what is this “primeval intellect” which is asuccessor of natural selection? Is “it” God? The authorsdo not say, but they carry their discussion primarily onthe back of observational data from the physical world.I see their text as a bridge between science and phi-losophy (religion). On the last page of the book it issaid that:

. . . the concept of design implies absolutely noth-ing about . . . the existence of the Christian God.All it implies is that life had an intelligent source.. . . Even if the design hypothesis were religious,however, criticizing it on that basis begs the ques-tion of whether it is scientifically warranted. Inscience, the origin of an idea is supposed to beirrelevant to its validity. What matters is not thesource but whether the idea is logically consistentand empirically supportable (p. 161).

The convincing quality of the evidence and the fair-ness and caution expressed by Davis and Kenyon isillustrated by their discussion of the polymeric macro-molecules considered to be the chemical basis of lifeitself:

The experimental work on the origin of life andmolecular biology of living cells is consistent withthe hypothesis of intelligent design. What makesthis interpretation so compelling is the amazingcorrelation between the structure of informationalmolecules (DNA, protein) and our universal expe-rience that such sequences are the result of intelli-gent causes. This strong analogy leads to the con-clusion that life itself owes its origin to a masterintellect. One can talk about adding innumerablerandom mutations, but proponents of intelligentdesign still wonder: How were such impressivegains in functional information consolidated? It isa fair and crucial question (p. 85).

There have been many changes from the first tosecond edition of Pandas. For instance, errors havebeen corrected; the final chapter for teachers is newand stronger. There are more references to scientificliterature; new and added material in the glossarycovers biochemistry, fossils, mammal-like reptiles, the


fossil whale, Basilosaurus, Archaeopteryx, anthropol-ogy, blood clotting, and proteins. If you enjoyed thefirst edition, you will like this one better.

I spotted very few errors in this second edition, butwith regard to Ostrom’s view that Archaeopteryx wasan insect catcher (p. 106), I understand that todayOstrom is somewhat less than zealous about promotingthis view.

Two main prongs of the creationist movement are(1) emphasis upon a supernatural creator GOD and (2)the concept of separate unrelated created types (kinds)of plants and animals. The Pandas book strongly sup-ports the latter with good science. With its stress uponintelligent design using good science, the book pointsin the direction of the former in a way that is acceptablein public schools and in a religiously neutral scientificcommunity. I strongly recommend this book, and feelthat it should be read by all teachers and be on highschool and college reading lists.

Originations of Life from Volcanoes and Petroleum: AScientific Theory Opposed to Evolution by DonaldE. Tyler. 1983. Published by the author. 1092 SW2nd Ave., Ontario, OR 97914 and printed by RyanGwinner Press. Portland, OR. 128 pages. $10.95paperback.

Reviewed by Wayne Frair*When I first glanced at this book I became awed at

the miracles it presents—not one but multiple miracles!I read the whole book more carefully—still awed—butthinking more and more that perhaps members of thescientific community should be challenged to probe atmore depth the issues presented.

The author, a retired Doctor of Medicine, drawsupon a wealth of information from molecules to bio-geography in support of his “theory of multiple origina-tions and creations.” However, when he says “creations”he apparently means development because God is notmentioned in the book; nor are there references to theBible or other “religious” writings. Tyler’s conclusionsare based upon observational data.

His originations begin with an early earth. Then:1. Trapped bubbles of gases within the hot molten

substance (or magma) inside the earth react toform chemical compounds composing petroleum.

2. Hot petroleum erupts or oozes (seeps) fromyoung volcanoes.

3. This petroleum then reacts with water and othercommon chemicals to produce the stuff of life—DNA, RNA, and proteins.

4. Other chemical substances including fatty acids,phosphates, and porphyrins, which are necessaryfor life are present in the petroleum-nucleotide-protein soup.

5. When “conditions are right, cells including livingorganisms are formed.

6. “Some of these single-celled living organismsare germ cells of many types (p. 46).

7. The environment at this particular time deter-mines what will survive.

*Wayne Frair, Ph.D., The Kings College, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510.

8. In an atmosphere lacking oxygen, only anaerobicbacteria and plants can survive.

9. Anaerobic bacteria and aquatic plants will releaseoxygen into the water.

10. After subsequent petroleum seepages and moregerm cells, the survivors can include aquaticanimals with low oxygen requirements.

11. When there is adequate oxygen in the water,germ cells of sponges, worms, snails, crabs,shrimps, etc. can develop. Geologically, thiswould have occurred during the CambrianPeriod.

12. Later, the atmosphere permits land plants toflourish.

13. The first land animals to survive will be oneswhich require little oxygen; later, those needingmore oxygen can thrive.

14. During the currently-understood geological agesthere would have continued to be an abundantsupply of multiple varieties of petroleum-pro-duced germ cells ready to develop in suitableenvironments.

Tyler has reached these conclusions inductively basedupon observable information, for he recognized thatscientific evidence does not support evolution. He says,“It is simply time that the theory of evolution wasdiscarded” (p. 117). Also Tyler would hold to fixity ofspecies and even lower taxonomic categories. Forexample, the honeycreeper birds in Hawaii developedindependently with similar general morphology butdifferent beaks.

Interestingly, in his new theory regarding humans,Tyler says, “some or all races of Homo sapiens origi-nated separately on various land masses correspondingto the general areas in which they are natives” (p. 120).For example, Black Africans are from Africa, and“North American natives probably originated in South-ern California where there are numerous petroleumseepages” (p. 120).

Tyler’s book is printed on high quality paper and hasa sewed binding. There is a table of contents at thebeginning but no index. There are very few directreferences to the literature. I counted only three foot-notes. At the end are 2¼ pages of “Selected Bibliog-raphy” which interestingly lack currently popular crea-tion or anti-evolution books.

Tyler’s concept solves many evolutionary problemsincluding why organisms in different parts of the worldcan be similar. When evidence of proximate geneticcontinuity is absent, the evolutionist is driven to con-cepts of parallelism or convergence—no problem formultiple originations! Mosaics like the platypus, kanga-roo and kiwi merely developed from germ cells havingDNA which led to development of organs characteris-tically found in diverse types of other organisms.

The author has written scientific papers and otherbooks which are obtainable from him (see for example1970, 1986). These works contain substantial observa-tional data. Tyler is an incisive and independent thinker,avant-garde, and not shy about building speculationsupon foundations which some critical readers will feelhave uncertain sections. According to my knowledge,Tyler is not widely recognized by creationists, and hisoriginations book should not be thought of as creation-ist except in the sense that it is supportive of separate


origins of genetically unrelated organisms. The authorappropriately recognizes the serious problems that sci-entists have fitting factual data into an evolutionarysynthesis.

The position that living types originated from germi-nal material has been advanced previously by manypeople including Augustine (ratio seminalis, 4th-5thcentury AD) and James L. Baldwin (creo-evolution,1957). The germinal concept even correlates with partof the Directed Panspermia view promoted by a nobel-ist and others in the 1970’s, but not now popular.

Is Tyler possibly a prophet ahead of his time? I thinkhis hypothesis is intriguing—and it does solve manyevolutionary conundrums—but as presented in thisbook it still is quite soft. The breadth of coverage inthe book has limited its depth in, for example, cytology,chromosome studies, and biochemistry.

Talk about miracles—just how could the tens ofthousands of different appropriate polymeric proteins,including enzymes for building DNA, form and gettogether with thousands of other types of organic andinorganic molecules in functional cellular organelles?Just to produce all the human races these events wouldhave had to have happened in almost identical waysmultiple times. Tyler himself believes that the answersto these types of questions will be much simpler thanwe envision today. Maybe he is correct.

Personally, I favor all the empirical research thatappropriately can be done to answer basic issues raisedin this book. Whether we understand few or manydetails about what could have happened during earlytimes of creation, it always will be appropriate toproclaim that, “In the beginning GOD created . . .”Genesis 1:1.

ReferencesBaldwin, J. L. 1957. A New Answer to Darwinism. Published by

Mary E. Baldwin, 431 South Dearborn St., Chicago, IL.Tyler, D. E. 1970. A new and simple theory of gravity. Pruett Press.

Boulder, CO.Tyler, D. E. 1986. Earliest man of America in Oregon, USA. Dis-

covery Books. Ontario, OR.

Science and Biblical Faith: A Science Documentary byThomas G. Barnes. 1993. Distributed by CreationResearch Society Books. Kansas City, MO. 191 pages.$12.00.

Reviewed by Emmett L. Williams*This is an unusual and reflective Bible-science book

well worth reading. The book contains testimonial-length biographies of Christian men of science as wellas brief discussions of their scientific achievements.We live in a generation where creationists ignore thework of those who have gone before them; Tom Barnes’book is a remedy to this narcissism.

The scientific creationists recognized by the authorare as follows:Lord Kelvin — developed age-limits on the earth and

sun as well as the absolute temperature scale.Louis Pasteur — established the law of biogenesis, con-

sidered the “father” of microbiology, produced aninoculation for anthrax and one for hydrophobia.

*5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092-2124.

Isaac Newton — the “father” of classical physics knownfor his establishment of the binomial theorem andcalculus. Other work included the color compositionof white light, new type of telescope, paths of comets,law of gravitation and the laws of motion as well asScriptural commentaries.

Johannes Kepler — heliocentric theory, paths of planetsaround the sun and the moons of Jupiter.

Michael Faraday — noted for his experiments anddemonstrations of electromagnetism, laws of elec-trolysis, electromagnetic induction and field theory.

James Maxwell — unified the fields of electricity, mag-netism and optics and produced four electromagneticfield equations.

Ernest Rutherford — “discovery” of the nucleus ofatoms.

Lord Rayleigh — pioneer work in acoustics and lightpropagation, found a new element—argon.

Joseph Thomson — “discovery” of the electron, neonisotopes; equated mass with energy and analyzedpositive rays.

W. R. Thompson — refuted Darwinism in the intro-duction of The Origin of Species.

Walter Lammerts — Plant breeder and founder ofCreation Research Society.

Harold Slusher — developed modern age-limits to earthand sun; offered some refutations of the view of anold universe.

Robert Gentry — work on radiohalos.Donald DeYoung — refuted modern theories of the

naturalistic origin of the moon.Dr. Barnes prefers classical physics solutions as op-

posed to modern physics analyses. He feels the modernmethods are too complicated mathematically and thatclassical physics offers simpler physically-visualizablemodels. Much of his work in the last 15 years has beendevoted to this end. Thus he recognizes those scientistswho have similar views as his.Louis Essen — inventor of the atomic clock.Petr Beckmann — editor of Access to Energy and

Galilean Electrodynamics.The author also presented some remarks by HaroldArmstrong, a former editor of the Quarterly, on whatwent wrong in physics in the early part of this century(pp. 153-156). Some chapters in the book are devotedto Dr. Barnes’ work on the young age of the earth,electromagnetic feedback and light propagation througha medium. Included are remarks on the creationisthigh school biology textbook written by members ofthe Creation Research Society and the legal situation inthe United States in relation to the origins controversy.

Dr. Barnes realizes that Creation is the ultimate originof science since it is the only view that is consistentwith the first and second laws of thermodynamics (pp.23, 180). Scientists who reject a supernatural view oforigins and deny any creative activity by a supremebeing philosophically “cut off their noses to spite theirfaces.” The modern view that chaos and disorder canbring forth order naturally is absurd to the extremeand is basically hostile to science itself.

This is a delightfully readable book of biographyand science offered in a palatable manner and evenphysicists who disagree with the author’s emphasis onclassical physics will enjoy reading it. Also the beautifulcover makes the book an attractive gift for science buffs.

AVAILABLE FROMCREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY BOOKSSee the current CRSQ for ordering information

CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY BOOKSSee the current CRSQ for ordering information

Documents

Creation Research Society Quarterly Application Form3 ... science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and ... A classical approach to electricity and magnetism with a chapter on